CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING Discussion

post #1 of 89
8/18/04 at 1:17pm
Thread Starter 
Has anyone seen this movie yet, or are they pulling an AVP and not screening the movie for critics? If thats the story, it ain't a good sign for this movie.

The trailers aren't very good, and I'll be surprised if the movie actually turns out to be more than average. The production will likely make a better story than the movie has. It'll be easy to put a pretty kick-ass making of doc on the DVD.

But anyway, who's gonna be seeing this?
Reply
post #2 of 89
8/18/04 at 1:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.I.A.
Has anyone seen this movie yet, or are they pulling an AVP and not screening the movie for critics? If thats the story, it ain't a good sign for this movie.
Well... there are two versions of the film. That's the scary thought.
Reply
post #3 of 89
8/18/04 at 1:28pm
They are releasing this with a whimper. WB's lost faith in it.
Reply
post #4 of 89
8/18/04 at 1:36pm
Thread Starter 
They must be just writing it off as a loss then, which is pretty ridiculous since they basically paid for two films and their not likely to make their money back.

Sometimes you wonder what the hell they are thinking...
Reply
post #5 of 89
8/18/04 at 1:53pm
I pulled up yahoo movies today to look up something, and saw that Exorcist: The beginning started aug 20.

I had to doubletake the current date and say 'wtf thats friday'. I have heard nothing about this movie(in its current incarnation), or seen anything marketing wise.

I'd say we've got a contender for club dreadesque IMDB worst drops of all time for week two's box office totals, but I don't know if the opening weekend will even be high enough to guage that.
Reply
post #6 of 89
8/18/04 at 2:36pm
Good. Help Collateral keep a share of the weekend BO.
Reply
post #7 of 89
8/18/04 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Nunziata
They are releasing this with a whimper. WB's lost faith in it.
No kidding. The TV spot has been the same one for the last three months.
Reply
post #8 of 89
8/18/04 at 3:01pm
At the risk of sounding dumb, I have a question:

Which version of this is being released? The Renny Harlin-directed one, or the more psychological one?
Reply
post #9 of 89
8/18/04 at 3:02pm
The Harlin theatrically, the Schrader on DVD.
Reply
post #10 of 89
8/18/04 at 3:23pm
Damn. Guess I'm waiting for the DVD...

IMDB posted the following about the theatrical release
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMDB
For the second weekend in a row, the film regarded as most likely to win the box office crown will not be screened for critics. Warner Bros. has decided not to subject the prequel The Exorcist: The Beginning to first-day reviews, which the studio apparently felt were likely to be overwhelmingly negative. Fox did the same last week with Alien Vs. Predator, which, as it turned out, exceeded box-office predictions. Reporting on the studios' decision to dispense with screenings for critics for the two films, New York Daily News movie critic Jack Mathews observed today (Wednesday): "The decision not to have advance screenings is invariably a reflection of how the studios feel their movies will be reviewed, and Fox was dead-on in assuming AvP would get slammed. Moviegoers eager to see the prequel to The Exorcist are hereby warned."
That doesn't sound promising...
Reply
post #11 of 89
8/18/04 at 4:09pm
Musn't lose faith in RENNY.......

They spent what, almost 90 million on both versions? And now they're going to give up?
Reply
post #12 of 89
8/18/04 at 4:43pm
wouldnt be the first time hollywood spent too much money on total shit. What i would like to know is has this movie become shit becus the studio was relying on the violent/disturbing images that got cut to produce scares, or was it always shit?
Reply
post #13 of 89
8/18/04 at 4:49pm
I'll be seeing it, as I'm a sucker for Stellan Skarsgaard. I'm also a sucker for demon possession movies--I even watched Days of Our Lives when they had a possession story arc. Now that I've established my high standards....
Schrader is one of my favorite filmmakers ever--I think his films are frequently exemplary, though his record isn't perfect. I plan to watch both versions, though. I think it'll be fascinating to compare and contrast.
Reply
post #14 of 89
8/18/04 at 4:53pm
It's always a bad sign when the best scares in a trailer are from the original movie (I can't give another example of this, however). I'll probably go see it anyway. I passed on The Village because of the negative buzz. I wouldn't want to give in to peer pressure every time.
Reply
post #15 of 89
8/18/04 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
What i would like to know is has this movie become shit becus the studio was relying on the violent/disturbing images that got cut to produce scares, or was it always shit?
You'll find out when someone actually sees it.
Reply
post #16 of 89
8/18/04 at 6:16pm
This whole apparent fiasco has caused me to search out and finally see Exorcist 3.
Am I stupid to do so? Scott and Dourif seem to warrant a view.
Reply
post #17 of 89
8/18/04 at 6:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucklehead
wouldnt be the first time hollywood spent too much money on total shit. What i would like to know is has this movie become shit becus the studio was relying on the violent/disturbing images that got cut to produce scares, or was it always shit?
Nothing got cut. They filmed the Schrader version, didn't like it, than commisioned a new script and had Harlin direct it. Its a totally different movie, the only thing that might be similar are the character arcs and the fact that its a pre-quel.

The only thing I hear that sounds positive is that its got some pretty good blood and gore. But I got enough of those movies at home, if the plot sucks (which it will), I'm not paying to see this.
Reply
post #18 of 89
8/18/04 at 6:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by M.I.A.
Nothing got cut.
actually, the Renny version originally got an NC-17 rating.
Reply
post #19 of 89
8/18/04 at 6:39pm
Thread Starter 
No shit? Wow I haven't heard that one. IMDB doesn't mention an original NC-17 rating and then it got re-submitted for an R. Of course it could be wrong though.

Where'd you hear it?
Reply
post #20 of 89
8/18/04 at 6:42pm
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/040726a.php
Reply
post #21 of 89
8/18/04 at 6:55pm
I'm actually looking forward to this, and looking forward to the DVD even more. Isn't releasing two completely different versions of the same movie in a DVD set some kind of landmark or something?

As for the WB losing faith in I take that as a good sign, these are the same guys that thought Catwoman was a good idea so I'm going on the concept if they thought bad movie was a good movie they probably think a good movie is a bad movie. Time will tell.
Reply
post #22 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:05am
If you eat a sausage it comes out as shit. if you eat shit, does it come out as a sausage?

Does that help?
Reply
post #23 of 89
8/19/04 at 1:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreizler
This whole apparent fiasco has caused me to search out and finally see Exorcist 3.
Am I stupid to do so? Scott and Dourif seem to warrant a view.
EXORCIST III is actually quite good. I wish it had a different name, it works as a seperate film that happens to reference the events of the original...

I may be wrong, but I believe it was a seperate novel or script (called "Legion"? I read this in an article years ago and my recollection is hazy) that had the Exorcist connection shoe-horned in to make it more commercial.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Trinity'sGusset
If you eat a sausage it comes out as shit. if you eat shit, does it come out as a sausage?
.
Reply
post #24 of 89
8/19/04 at 6:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariodevil
EXORCIST III is actually quite good. I wish it had a different name, it works as a seperate film that happens to reference the events of the original...

I may be wrong, but I believe it was a seperate novel or script (called "Legion"? I read this in an article years ago and my recollection is hazy) that had the Exorcist connection shoe-horned in to make it more commercial.

Yeah, Blatty wrote the book "Legion."

And I picked up "Exorcist 3" widescreen dvd at Wal-mart today. For $5.50, what the hell.
Reply
post #25 of 89
8/19/04 at 7:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreizler
Yeah, Blatty wrote the book "Legion."

And I picked up "Exorcist 3" widescreen dvd at Wal-mart today. For $5.50, what the hell.
A full blown Director's Cut of EXORCIST III is being released later this year on DVD. Extras include director's (Blatty) commentary, deleted scenes, alternate ending, and other stuff.
Reply
post #26 of 89
8/19/04 at 7:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeper
A full blown Director's Cut of EXCORCIST III is being released later this year on DVD. Extras include director's (Blatty) commentary, deleted scenes, alternate ending, and other stuff.
Now THAT is good news.
i'd hope to get a drector's cut, if the theatrical cut was jiggered with, but i'll take whatever goodies i can get for a film that i've always really liked. didn't even know there was hate for it until Chewers started yakking about the prequel.
Reply
post #27 of 89
8/19/04 at 7:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeper
A full blown Director's Cut of EXCORCIST III is being released later this year on DVD. Extras include director's (Blatty) commentary, deleted scenes, alternate ending, and other stuff.

Haven't watched it yet, but if I like it, I'll be forced to pick this one up too. Thanks for the notice.


Also, isn't there a screening og "Beginning" tonight? Hope to read some reviews later.
Reply
post #28 of 89
8/19/04 at 8:34pm
Patrick Ewing and Fabio as angels.
Reply
post #29 of 89
8/19/04 at 8:39pm
Well I'm watching a rundown of it tonight, Perk of (well I quit but still get the benefits) of working at amovie theatre. I'll let everyone know how it is after I get back.
Reply
post #30 of 89
8/19/04 at 8:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotai
Patrick Ewing and Fabio as angels.
It's a very scary film.
Reply
post #31 of 89
8/19/04 at 9:21pm
I'd like to give my impressions, as the ATL screening was this evening.

At 7:00.

Eastern.

I'm writing this from home, so you can guess that its not over yet.

...

Fucking horrible. Except for the Bat-crucifix and the CGI hyenas o' doom.

So to sum up: Avoidance is key.
Reply
post #32 of 89
8/19/04 at 9:31pm
I hope by bat crucifix you mean Father Merrin takes a rope, attaches it to a cross, then uses it to get out of a hole or something. CGI hyenas doesn't sound like it could be very good. I was hoping for at least a decent horror movie with this, guess it was for naught
Reply
post #33 of 89
8/19/04 at 10:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Sweeney
I'd like to give my impressions, as the ATL screening was this evening.

At 7:00.

Eastern.

I'm writing this from home, so you can guess that its not over yet.

...

Fucking horrible. Except for the Bat-crucifix and the CGI hyenas o' doom.

So to sum up: Avoidance is key.
You walked out on it? Wow. Now I'm sorta glad I didn't go.
Reply
post #34 of 89
8/19/04 at 10:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Sweeney
Fucking horrible. Except for the Bat-crucifix and the CGI hyenas o' doom.

So to sum up: Avoidance is key.
Well, you and Dennis should feel silly because the film picked up nicely shortly after you left.

.
.
.
.

Well, no it didn't. But damn you both to Hell for leaving as the rest of us stayed.

Hopefully, there's an infinite loop of this film there waiting for you.
Reply
post #35 of 89
8/19/04 at 10:58pm
I'm sure there is one. But I'll walk out on it.
Reply
post #36 of 89
8/19/04 at 10:59pm
So question for those that saw it: do you think there's any way that the Paul Schrader version could be good or is the material here just too atrocious to work for anyone?
Reply
post #37 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:01pm
Isn't the Schrader version like a completely different film, with different actors, a different script and the like?
Reply
post #38 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Sweeney
I'm sure there is one. But I'll walk out on it.
That'd be great if you could just walk out of Hell. And all of the other souls who've been tormented for millenia look at each other and kick themselves silly for not trying.

BTW, I don't see any version of this being good. The story doesn't really make any sense.
Reply
post #39 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:17pm
From IMDB:
Quote:
Morgan Creek Productions fired Paul Schrader after he had submitted a completed movie, saying that he had given them "footage without any of the bloody violence the backers had wanted". He had already made it clear in interviews that he was making more of a psychological drama than an all-out gore-fest. He was fired and Renny Harlin was hired to re-shoot the movie. Almost 90% of the movie was re-shot and at least two characters have been dropped from Paul Schrader's version of the movie.
90%? Wow.
Reply
post #40 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:25pm
My two favorite horror franchises torpedoed in a mere two weeks! Thanks, motherfucking Hollywood!
Reply
post #41 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:28pm
The "bloody violence" is stupid. A baby born with maggots eating it alive. A guy with clear puss bumps on his skin with maggots crawling inside them. A guy that's been eaten apart by crows.

I mean, I'd expect to see some bullshit like that in a Tempe DVD flick, but here it's just cheesy.
Reply
post #42 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:35pm
Yeah Renny completely redid the movie. Shrader's version is different. Different script, different actors(except for Skarsgaard)
Reply
post #43 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:39pm
You can really only tell it's a Renny Harlin film in the waaaay over-FX-laden final 30 minutes or so.
Reply
post #44 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:53pm
Gabriel Mann played Father Francis in Schrader's version, but due to scheduling conflicts, he was unable to reprise the role when WB hired Harlin, so they replaced him with James D'Arcy.



Also, Izabella Scorupco's character was added in the Harlin version to replace the original female lead played by Clara Bellar in Schrader's cut of the film.

Finally, Billy Crawford did not return for reshoots.

I wonder if the studio would've balked if the first director (John Frankenheimer) had lived long enough to helm the film.
Reply
post #45 of 89
8/19/04 at 11:55pm
A fucking abomination of a film.
Reply
post #46 of 89
8/20/04 at 12:05am
Can't say I'm surprised. Guess I'll check out Collateral again tomorrow.
Reply
post #47 of 89
8/20/04 at 12:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by devincf
A fucking abomination of a film.

Ugh. Well, I can still look forward to Schrader's version. Hopefully.
Reply
post #48 of 89
8/20/04 at 12:27am
This is depressing news, yet again. We need a darkhorse horror movie to come along soon and stir things up a little.
Reply
post #49 of 89
8/20/04 at 12:35am
Meh, I enjoyed it. Quite a bit actually, as did the crowd I saw it with. Of course, I saw The Heretic six hours ago, so that might've influenced my opinion.
Reply
post #50 of 89
8/20/04 at 12:51am
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape
Meh, I enjoyed it. Quite a bit actually, as did the crowd I saw it with. Of course, I saw The Heretic six hours ago, so that might've influenced my opinion.
ok, so lets just get this straight from the get go...

youre saying it was crap, but you enjoyed it nonetheless?

or are you saying youre enjoyment was due to the fact that it had redeeming qualities akin to a well-made flick?
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING Discussion