I have never understood why The Exorcist inspired an entire franchise. I think the first film works well on its own, with every succeeding film unnecessary. If that is not bad enough, The Exorcist managed somehow a most curious situation. It apparently has not one but two prequels that serve as origin stories. Another time I will look in at 2005's Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist. For now, I will look at Exorcist: The Beginning, which came out a year prior. I do not understand the hate that Exorcist: The Beginning gets. It is a serviceable albeit flawed opening to this franchise which maybe tries too hard to be graphic, but which worked well for me.
Cairo, 1949. Archaeologist and former priest Lancaster Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) has been hired by the mysterious Semelier (Ben Cross) to find a rare artifact in British Kenya: a figure of a demon hidden within a Byzantine church that was buried and recently unearthed. The strange thing is that this church should not be there, as it predates the introduction of Christianity to the area. How did it come to be there, and why is it so well-preserved that it looks as if it has never been used?
Arriving in the Turkana region, Merrin is joined by eager young priest Father Francis (James D'Arcy), the chief archaeology overseer Jeffries (Alan Ford) and Dr. Sarah Novak (Izabella Scorupco). They begin looking into the church but find blasphemy and mystery within. The angels point their weapons downward rather than towards Heaven. More shocking is how the crucifix is deliberately inverted. The evil within it has escaped to infect figuratively and literally two Turkana boys. Older brother James (James Bellamy) is torn to pieces by hyenas as his younger brother Joseph (Remy Sweeney) watches. Joseph soon becomes infected with something, which might require the Turkana people to perform their own version of exorcism.
Merrin and Sarah, a concentration camp survivor who had been imprisoned for her anti-Nazi activities, soon begin to bond. Merrin too is traumatized by the war, forced to select people to be shot by a sadistic Nazi officer. This was what broke him from God and the priesthood, but now he will need those resources to fight a greater evil. Eventually, Father Francis reveals the shocking history of the region. Here, it is believed, is the place where Lucifer fell from Heaven as well as the sight of a major battle between Crusaders. The Vatican had attempted to keep all this from ever being discovered, but a recently unearthed letter in the Vatican Archives written in 1893 have enough of a mention that it sparked interest to find this lost church.
Merrin now must find and fight the demonic being that will claim many lives before it is sent back to hell. Not all will survive, but will Merrin find both strength and faith to fight Satan's minion?
After watching Exorcist: The Beginning, I am at a loss to understand why it is seen as such a bad film. I thought it was miles ahead over both Exorcist II: The Heretic and The Exorcist III. One of Exorcist: The Beginning's great flaws is in the visual effects department. Some effects within the film are almost laughably bad. The hyenas were not convincing. The worst one was when a demon-possessed person attempted to get to Merrin to kill him. The overall look was more comical than frightening. The storm that overwhelmed the hospital too was something that a bad Syfy show would find a bit lackluster.
I also was not particularly fond of some of the graphic violence in Exorcist: The Beginning. Of particular note is the gruesome end of Dr. Bession (Patrick O'Kane), the French chief archaeologist who went bonkers and offed himself in what I thought was a particularly gruesome way. This is strange given that some other deaths were more restrained. Also, I have a strong reaction against seeing children killed regardless of how visual or not it is. James getting torn to pieces may have been obscured, but it still bothers me.
I figure that some of the graphic nature to Exorcist: The Beginning was director Renny Harlin's way of giving audiences what he thought they wanted: lots of gore. I think that such things were not needed. However, I found more positives than negatives in Alexi Hawley's screenplay from a story by William Wisher and Caleb Carr.
Some of the performances were quite good. Stellan Skarsgard did well as Merrin, this haunted man who must rise to embrace his faith against this ultimate evil. D'Arcy in a smaller role did well as Father Francis, making him a more youthful and inexperienced priest who actually knows more than he lets on. Scorupco had an interesting backstory that she worked with, though she was a little more blank as Dr. Novak. Alan Ford as Jeffries was a bit over-the-top for my tastes, and I loved how Ben Cross had basically two scenes and got paid for it.
Overall, I found Exorcist: The Beginning an acceptable prequel to this franchise. I wrote at least twice in my notes how I did not hate the film as much as I was supposed to. Is it a great film or even a good film? I would say no, but nowhere as abysmal as many insist that it is. Serviceable, with some good performances and efforts at frights, Exorcist: The Beginning was fine, and I can't fault a film for meeting my expectations.
THE EXORCIST FILMS
Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist
The Exorcist: Believer
No comments:
Post a Comment
Views are always welcome, but I would ask that no vulgarity be used. Any posts that contain foul language or are bigoted in any way will not be posted.
Thank you.