Exorcist: The Beginning

It's already discouraging that the film is conceived to ride on the wave of popularity of the first and already legendary The Exorcist, but it only succeeds very sporadically. The huge amount of poorly done effects (terrible hyenas) was surprising and seemed quite strange for a big production. On the other hand, it's not surprising from good-old Harlin, who seems to have undergone a brain operation in the new century. He can't direct actors and doesn't know what to do. Several scenes are good, the lighting work deserves attention, but in terms of the screenplay, the new Exorcist is quite uneven and the ending is nonsense. (05/18/2008)

"The Exorcist: Birth" is simply something that builds on a great film and not such a great series for me, and it creates its own myth, which is not entirely bad and works. Unfortunately, the connection with World War II felt very gratuitous in this case, and the plot could have easily done without it. Only Stellan's character gets an additional dimension through it, and Father Merrin remains the most interesting. (02/17/2015)

Exorcist: The Beginning is skillfully shot, with nice production design and detailed composition that takes into account the color palette of the picture. But it’s not clear what exactly is going on in the film. This is a catastrophic mishmash of hackneyed motifs, especially the trauma caused by the Nazis, and the most debased formulas for inducing disgust, reminiscent of old Eurotrash flicks. If not for Stellan Skarsgard, who can make anything believable, this wouldn’t deserve even the weak two stars that I’m giving it. (11/06/2004)

I love the original The Exorcist and consider it the best horror film of all time. Its sequel... Um, how do I put this... I hate the sequel. Except for The Beginning, which has some distinct pluses (and it's a prequel). First of all, the setting - 99% of the plot (i.e., everything except the flashbacks) takes place in Africa, where you have the feeling that some mystical evil is lurking around every corner. Second, Stellan Skarsgård. Thirdly, Harlin's direction, which doesn't play at anything innovative and, where it can, copies Friedkin's tried-and-true and impressive style from the original film. Fourth, the rawness, the gore and the generally dense atmosphere that runs through the film. Bottom line: I'm satisfied. Although it's not like the original film (because nothing is). (01/11/2010)