EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING Discussion - Page 2

Great review. Too late on that last paragraph, though. People have such low standards these days that I'm sure we'll get a good number of the "Ah, it wasn't that bad, guys..." types.

Excellent review. Especially the subtle Jamiepoole slam there at the end. Great.

Harsh, Faraci, but excellent.

I might invite the wrath of the devil here, but I must confess, I'm not a big fan of the original.

"Uganda MacGuffin"

"Herr Plotzdevice"

Awesome.

Those'd be the actual names if they had called in David Twohy to do the script rewrite for Harlin's version.

“fuck allegory and subtext”. "Merrin gets his groove back." Gold.

I feel bad for Stellan, and wonder if he was contractually obligated to do the film again with Harlin.

I liked that Pullings fella from M&C, but neither he nor vaguely archeological underground churches are enough to get me within pissing distance of the theatre holding this crap.

See, your review makes it sound like it's funny enough to watch. I'm picturing a Schumacher-like 'gearing up' scene where Father Merrin shows all his holy gadgets to the camera.

* Merrin whips out holy cross, exagerrated sound effect, closeup on cross*

And then you end it with a closeup on Merrin's ass.

Oh and the reason for Merrin losing his faith sounds the same as the Schrader version.

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/38/features-foundas.php

I have to make a correction.

This movie is produced by Morgan Creek, not WB.

Morgan Creek paid all the production costs on the pic, and WB is distribbing the pic for a fee.

Also, from the ex-cop comparisons in the review, i'm picturing this fantasy version of the "Merrin Loses his faith" scene.



Cardinal- "MERRIN!!!!!! IN MY OFFICE!!!!!!"

Merrin- "How's it hangin, Cardinal?"

Cardinal- "Plant your ass, Merrin! Now Lets talk about that exorcism you pulled in Reno. Remember that one? Goddammit, you caused 20 thousand in property damage! The state of Nevada is crawling up my ass as we speak!"

Merrin- "Bitch, Bitch, Bitch. Guess you forgot the part where I saved that Peruvian boy. I saved him from the devil!"

Cardinal- "Doesn't matter, Merrin. Now .....I don't know how to say this, but--the order has come down from Rome. You're out. Hand in your holy water and your holy cross."

Merrin- "You're shittin me. You're hanging my ass out to dry? Me? Because of those bureaucrats in Rome? You know how many exorcisms I've pulled! Remember that 8 month job in Calcutta?? Goddammit, you know me, Cardinal! I GET THE JOB DONE."

Cardinal- "It's out of my hands, Merrin! You're a damn good exorcist, but GODDAMMIT.......you were just too reckless."

Merrin- "FINE!"

*Merrin angrily slams down his Holy Cross and holy water*

Cardinal- "AND your back-up cross!"

*Merrin reluctantly removes back-up cross from his ankle holster*

Cardinal- "For what it's worth, I'm sorry."

Merrin- "Yeah....Me too."

*We follow the camera as it travels downward, ALL THE WAY TO HELL*

The Devil- "MERRIN. Your Soul......IS MINE!"

No, I liked it as a film. I think the cinematography is beautiful (especially the scene in 1944 Holland) and Skarsgard makes a convincing Merrin. It was interesting at my screening -- after the local radio reps got up and bashed the other two sequels (those SOBs called Legion worse than The Heretic... I almost had an anuerism), the audience kept chatting to themselves, and I heard things like "I ain't 'gon be scared!" and the like. Then the scene with the hyenas happened and put everyone on edge. Next came Holland and so on and so forth. By the end, people were covering their eyes (and probably not the way Devin was ).

I do agree with Devin on one particular point, though. When the demon is running through the hallway after Merrin, it is a terrible effect. What's worse though is the final shot of the film, with a very obviously blue-screened shot of Skarsgard heading towards the Vatican.

Thanks for the spolers. When I hear a movie is as crappy as this, I like to know every crappy little thing about it so I can laugh and say "Thank God I didn't see this thing!"

By the way, the word is spelled "cupboard", not "cubbard".

"The power of Christ compels you to stay home." I laughed for 5 minutes when I read that.

Funny stuff. And this movie sounds like dreck. Nothing in the previews makes me want to see this movie, and your review clinches that decision.

This movie sucked shit. That is all.

Actually, that's not all. Here's what the movie does: for the first hour, nothing happens. Then, for the second intolerable hour, something unpleasant and stupid happens every five minutes. Finally, in its mercy, the movie ends, so you can go get a snack and try to get on with your life.

Dead on review, Devin. Fuck this movie.

And there I was last night thinking I should've tried to go to the screening instead of staying home and repeatedly shutting the refrigerator door on my testicles under strobe lights. All the news about the reshoots didn't sound good, but I didn't expect a nearly unanimous reaming. Is it not even so stupid it's funny? Maybe I will see Collateral this weekend instead.

No. I got one good "this is horrible" laugh out of the whole thing.

And call me if you go see Collateral. I still haven't seen it.

I have one stupid question.......

For you guys, which one is better?

A. CGI scenes of EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING B. CGI scenes of A SOUND OF THUNDER's trailer

Fantasic review, Devin.

You have successfully convinced me not to set foot near this film.

Agreed, though I thought "Father Expendable Exposition" was the best one.

Distribbing?

Please do not start using the asinine vocabulary of Variety.

Sorry...........

Or at least include thirty links in your posts if you're going to talk like that.

i dont remember the site it was on but they ran an article about the two different prequels. at the end of the article they mention how schrader sent a copy to william peter blatty and the man said he love it so much he watched it twice. it was either blatty or friedkin. either way that lets me know its (schraders version) gonna be good.

Actually, this is the main reason I left. This doesn't scratch the surface of the genius that is Uwe.

Piss poor reviews andno critical screening.

I am so there after work tonight.

Also, am I the only one predicting "Anacondas" isn't going to be screened either?

Or possibly "Suspect Zero"?

http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=18128
Paramount ordered that no critics talk or post reviews about the film until after it’s release date.

M. Night Shyamalan seems to think so.

Reviews

"I was mildly surprised when it didn’t stink up the joint. In that regard, you can call it the Queen of the Damned 2004."

Ha.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html


heheheeh

Nick is in it~~~~

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/eo/2004...304670000.html


Battle of the "Exorcists"?
Friday August 20 5:05 PM ET


Director Renny Harlin's The Exorcist: The Beginning opened Friday to hellish buzz and several hellish reviews.

Could another version of the film, directed by Paul Schrader but shelved in favor of Harlin's take, have fared better?

Audiences may yet find out.


Morgan Creek, the production company behind The Exorcist: The Beginning, a prequel to 1973 horror classic, The Exorcist, may release Schrader's film theatrically, its president hinted this week.

"Now that, I think, is unprecedented," said film historian Bill Warren in an email interview.

Where The Exorcist: The Beginning is concerned, precedent isn't concerned.

The bedeviled project, a prequel to 1973 horror classic The Exorcist, had been more than a decade in the toiling when Schrader, the esteemed screenwriter of Taxi Driver and the director of more than a dozen films, including Auto Focus, finally got cameras rolling in Morocco in November 2002.

Nearly a year later and $40 million later, after Schrader had shot and completed a cut of the film, Morgan Creek deigned it not scary enough and began again with a new script, a new cast (save for star Stellan Skarsgard as devil-dueling Father Merrin, the role played by Max von Sydow in the 1973 hit) and a new director, Harlin.

Directors have been fired before. Footage has been scrapped before. Actors have been swapped out before. No less than Hollywood classic The Wizard of Oz braved all three such upheavals in the early weeks of production, when original director Richard Thorpe and his 12 days of work were shown the door, and original Tin Man Buddy Ebsen was replaced by Jack Haley after the character's silver makeup left Ebsen in the hospital.

But a completed movie being completely redone?

"There are a lot of movies that start with different players than they end up with," said Warren, author of Keep Watching the Skies! American Science Fiction Movies of the Fifties. "[But] I know of no precedent for this total reshooting of a movie, except for Woody Allen's September, which he shot twice with different casts."

Morgan Creek previously has floated the possibility of a double-DVD package pairing Harlin's and Schrader's fright efforts side-by-side. The notion of a limited-release theatrical run for Schrader's cut was mentioned in a profile on the film(s) in Wednesday's Los Angeles Times.

Morgan Creek president James Robinson didn't put a timetable on a box-office debut for Schrader's Exorcist, telling the Times only that "obviously" the movie wouldn't come out at the same time as Harlin's.

According to critics and fans, Morgan Creek, which sunk an estimated $100 million-plus making the two movies, might have released the wrong version first.

"The Schrader version always sounded more appealing, on paper anyway," said Nick Nunziata, Webmaster of Cinematic Happenings Under Development, or CHUD.com, for short. "He's a real filmmaker."

CHUD.com's review of Harlin's The Exorcist: The Beginning offered an equally blunt assessment: "[It's] a terrible film," the notice began.

Similar scathing reviews, mostly from online critics, could be found Friday on RottenTomatoes.com. (The big-gun newspaper writers didn't get a look at the movie until Thursday night, too late for them to make their deadlines for Friday's editions. Warner Bros., which is distributing the film, said it wasn't ready to be screened before then.)

Morgan Creek's Robinson told the Times he wasn't worried as long as The Beginning began its box-office run with a $40 million opening weekend.

"If we hit that, nobody wins, nobody loses," Robinson said in the paper.

At least one box-office expert predicted somebody was going to lose.

"That's highly unlikely," BoxOfficeMojo.com's Brandon Gray said of a $40 million opening for The Beginning. "I think $40 million is on the high end of expectations for a total take."

Instead, Gray said he thought The Exorcist prequel would bow in the "low teens" on a typically underwhelming late August weekend.

CHUD.com's Nunziata said he doesn't see how Morgan Creek would release the second Exorcist movie in theaters if the first one scares away customers.

"I can't see it happening," Nunziata said. "[But], hey, this would be great."

A link provided by wadew1
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/38/features-foundas.php

Just saw it. Not good. Not the worst, but farther from the best.

Where does it show up on the Renny scale? Below Driven?

6% at rottentomatoes.com

Reviews counted: 35
Fresh: 2 Rotten: 33
Average Rating: 3.5/10

zoiks!

AVP is the critics' darling compared to this.
And look at the fresh ones

1.)"I was mildly surprised when it didn’t stink up the joint. In that regard, you can call it the Queen of the Damned 2004."

2.)"What starts as a tense, suspenseful film ends up falling into sad clichés."

The might have went with the wrong "amateurish piece of garbage". I think the head guy at Morgan Creek said something like that about Shrader's version in an email message after seeing the film. It was in fangoria.

The Exorcist: The Beginning could hardly be expected at this point to live up to the anti-hype. And indeed, I felt it was merely mediocre. Some bits were very good, some were very bad, the scare chords were annoying, but Stellan Skarsgard was terrific. I've seen him in a number of roles where he's this jaded, bitter guy who no longer gives a shit and therefore has balls of unbelievium, and it always entertains me because he always sells it. And in a film like this where character development is sparse, it's cool to have someone in there who seems to be conveying a greater character arc than the writers came up with.

Something that really threw me out of the film was how they used the iconic makeup from the original to indicate that someone was possessed (with intent to corrupt and maim). The way it disappeared and reappeared made me expect the "we're gonna get you" chant from Evil Dead.

And seeing this film after reading so much about the Schrader version is a little bit Twilight Zone. (I just reread SJR's articles about it, and boy do I still want to see that movie.) If they do decide to release that version in theaters, what would they call it? The Exorcist: The Other Version You've Never Seen?

Eh, not worth the time you would use to go see it. Not horrible, but not good either. There are better things to see.

The most memorable thing about this for me was the trailers for "Saw," "TA:WP," and "Shaun of the Dead."

I can't wait for those.


Oh and the movie sucked.

http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/c...-more-channels
BOX OFFICE
No. 1 but still a disappointment
The costly 'Exorcist' prequel takes in $18.2 million; its producers had hoped for more.


By R. Kinsey Lowe, Times Staff Writer



The rewritten, recast and re-shot version of "Exorcist: The Beginning" managed to land in first place over the weekend. But the estimated $18.2 million that the film brought in was less than half the $40-million opening that James Robinson, whose company produced the movie, said he would need to "get out with my money."

Morgan Creek Productions spent in the neighborhood of $100 million on the two versions — $40 million on the first, turned in last year by director Paul Schrader, and even more than that on Renny Harlin's almost total revamp, according to Morgan Creek President Robinson.



Warner Bros., the distributor of the movie, has less financial exposure and somewhat less on the line.

Despite the disappointing opening, Dan Fellman, Warner Bros. president of distribution, maintained: "We're in a good position."

The studio distributes the movies that Morgan Creek finances. Fellman said Robinson was not available for comment Sunday.

Is there really no explanation for the doctor lady being the actual person who's possesed? And is it complete randomness that blood just starts oozing out of her head at the end and she dies? There's nothing in the film to make sense of those? If so, that's awful. I left the movie kind of confused, so I just hope there's a little, unseen explanation for those events.