GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
In The Theaters
I just saw it and boy does it...
318

Exorcist: The Beginning
Topic by: ColonelKong
Posted: August 21, 2004 - 9:04 AM PDT
Last Reply: August 27, 2004 - 6:42 PM PDT

author topic: Exorcist: The Beginning
ColonelKong
post #1  on August 21, 2004 - 9:04 AM PDT  
Anyone here caught the reshot Renny Harlin version of Exorcist, against my better judgement I may catch it in a theater. If nothing else, I am morbidly curious. I wouldn't expect it to be "good" by any means(only 5% of the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes were halfway positive), but I wonder if it at least might be a entertainingly crappy horror movie. I believe that Harlin's version was shot by Vittorio Storaro (who was also the DP on the Schrader version), that's has to count for something. I am interested in seeing the original Paul Schrader version (it's supposed to get a DVD release sometime next year), Bill Blatty reportedly has seen it and loved it. Is it complete or is there still some CGI work to be done on it?

Completely off-topic, I caught
Open Water yesterday, I thought it was pretty good, but not spectacular. If you're expecting a Jaws-type of movie, you're probably going to be disappointed.
ColonelKong
post #2  on August 21, 2004 - 9:04 AM PDT  
D'oh! Should've hit the preview button, I didn't mean to bold all that text.
Ayato
post #3  on August 21, 2004 - 12:49 PM PDT  
I enjoyed it, I like movies to get some kind of reaction out of me and this one has me grossed out, creeped out, and laughing at the occasional cheese factor. Not a "good" movie by any means, but enjoyable nonetheless....if you like this sort of thing.
underdog
post #4  on August 23, 2004 - 1:14 PM PDT  
> On August 21, 2004 - 9:04 AM PDT ColonelKong wrote:
> ---------------------------------
I believe that Harlin's version was shot by Vittorio Storaro (who was also the DP on the Schrader version), that's has to count for something. I am interested in seeing the original Paul Schrader version (it's supposed to get a DVD release sometime next year), Bill Blatty reportedly has seen it and loved it. Is it complete or is there still some CGI work to be done on it?

I bet there *is* a huge difference between the two versions and hope to see the Schrader cut on DVD, too. I don't know the status either...
>
> Completely off-topic, I caught Open Water yesterday, I thought it was pretty good, but not spectacular. If you're expecting a Jaws-type of movie, you're probably going to be disappointed.
> ---------------------------------


I haven't seen it yet, why do I have the sinking (sorry) feeling that OPEN WATER is this year's BLAIR WITCH, as far as a little indie film getting over-hyped by an aggressive marketing campaign that sets up unfair expectations. Still want to see it though -- I'm impressed by their tenacity in making it through an extremely challenging shoot logistically.


stypee
post #5  on August 24, 2004 - 12:01 AM PDT  
> On August 21, 2004 - 9:04 AM PDT ColonelKong wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Anyone here caught the reshot Renny Harlin version of Exorcist, against my better judgement I may catch it in a theater. If nothing else, I am morbidly curious. I wouldn't expect it to be "good" by any means(only 5% of the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes were halfway positive), but I wonder if it at least might be a entertainingly crappy horror movie. I believe that Harlin's version was shot by Vittorio Storaro (who was also the DP on the Schrader version), that's has to count for something. I am interested in seeing the original Paul Schrader version (it's supposed to get a DVD release sometime next year), Bill Blatty reportedly has seen it and loved it. Is it complete or is there still some CGI work to be done on it?
>
> Completely off-topic, I caught
Open Water yesterday, I thought it was pretty good, but not spectacular. If you're expecting a Jaws-type of movie, you're probably going to be disappointed.
> ---------------------------------


I honestly do not know why I want to see this film but it's making me crazy, it's like I have to see this film. What angers me more is that I know it's going to be a huge, big, turd. But it's one of those things, like being addicted to something. You need it, you just have to do it or seek help. I don't think there are any film anoynomous groups and quite frankly don't need 12 steps to stop watching bad movies. It's a passion.. I will say "what the fuck where they thinking giving Renny Harlin this project?"

This guy made 2 good films during his career. Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger. He had a pretty fun script with DEEP BLUE SEA and totally screwed it up. Yeah it was silly but dammit, you screwed up a perfectly decent "popcorn" movie. How is this possible? Now you've messed up the EXORCIST "franchise" after a REALLY GOOD director tried his hand at a sequel (Part II)... If you can catch the re-run, check out the E! TRUE HOLLYWOOD SPECIAL on the films. I've been studying and researching them for years and they actually had some information that I didn't know about it. It also kind of spooked me a bit.
stypee
post #6  on August 24, 2004 - 12:04 AM PDT  
> On August 23, 2004 - 1:14 PM PDT underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On August 21, 2004 - 9:04 AM PDT ColonelKong wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> I believe that Harlin's version was shot by Vittorio Storaro (who was also the DP on the Schrader version), that's has to count for something. I am interested in seeing the original Paul Schrader version (it's supposed to get a DVD release sometime next year), Bill Blatty reportedly has seen it and loved it. Is it complete or is there still some CGI work to be done on it?
>
> I bet there *is* a huge difference between the two versions and hope to see the Schrader cut on DVD, too. I don't know the status either...
> >
> > Completely off-topic, I caught Open Water yesterday, I thought it was pretty good, but not spectacular. If you're expecting a Jaws-type of movie, you're probably going to be disappointed.
> > ---------------------------------
>
>
> I haven't seen it yet, why do I have the sinking (sorry) feeling that OPEN WATER is this year's BLAIR WITCH, as far as a little indie film getting over-hyped by an aggressive marketing campaign that sets up unfair expectations. Still want to see it though -- I'm impressed by their tenacity in making it through an extremely challenging shoot logistically.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------


I want to see this one as well but I can assure you, it's not another BLAIR WITCH. Die hard horror buffs HATE this film, why, well I can't answer that because I haven't seen it. But they keep refering it to that rumor of it being in the BLAIR WITCH category and it's not.
DLeonard
post #7  on August 24, 2004 - 1:22 PM PDT  
> On August 24, 2004 - 12:01 AM PDT stypee wrote:
> ---------------------------------
>I will say "what the fuck where they thinking giving
>Renny Harlin this project?"
>
>This guy made 2 good films during his career. Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger.
> ---------------------------------

Cliffhanger was one of his "good" films? Yikes !!
I'd hate to see the not so good ones.

After Boorman's curiously awful The Heretic and the simply awful Exorcist 3, the notion of a decent follow up to the original film has long faded away. But like a train wreck, I will no doubt find myself watching it someday.

However, a bad sequel is one thing. Tweaking with the original and making it worse is a shame. That Restored Version that came out a few years ago is weak compared to Friedkin's original cut. OK maybe not weak, since the changes were minor, but all of the changes were bad. Billy should have remembered the devil is in the details.
stypee
post #8  on August 24, 2004 - 7:05 PM PDT  
> On August 24, 2004 - 1:22 PM PDT DLeonard wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On August 24, 2004 - 12:01 AM PDT stypee wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> >I will say "what the fuck where they thinking giving
> >Renny Harlin this project?"
> >
> >This guy made 2 good films during his career. Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger.
> > ---------------------------------
>
> Cliffhanger was one of his "good" films? Yikes !!
> I'd hate to see the not so good ones.
>
> After Boorman's curiously awful The Heretic and the simply awful Exorcist 3, the notion of a decent follow up to the original film has long faded away. But like a train wreck, I will no doubt find myself watching it someday.
>
> However, a bad sequel is one thing. Tweaking with the original and making it worse is a shame. That Restored Version that came out a few years ago is weak compared to Friedkin's original cut. OK maybe not weak, since the changes were minor, but all of the changes were bad. Billy should have remembered the devil is in the details.
> ---------------------------------


I rather like the "VERSION YOU NEVER SEEN!" that creepy 20 second "spider sequence" is scary as hell. The new sound mix is even more powerful. I own both versions (another anoyance) and the thing I really hate about the orignal film is the simple fact that Friedkin as a person is a raging, egotistical asshole. Just listen to the commetary, that guy is so full of himself! Yet I am comflicted with the fact that the man WAS a good filmmaker.
ColonelKong
post #9  on August 24, 2004 - 8:11 PM PDT  
> On August 24, 2004 - 1:22 PM PDT DLeonard wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> After Boorman's curiously awful The Heretic and the simply awful Exorcist 3, the notion of a decent follow up to the original film has long faded away. But like a train wreck, I will no doubt find myself watching it someday.

I rather like Exorcist III myself, it has its share of problems (it probably doesn't help that it was based on a novel that wasn't intended to be an Exorcist sequel), but there's a lot I like about it too. If nothing else, I think it has the most expertly directed scare scene in any of the Exorcist movies (if I ever get to make a "real" horror movie, I plan to rip it off in some way), if you've never seen Exorcist III, you'll know it when you see it.

Exorcist II is a pretty bad movie, and as a sequel to The Exorcist, a total disaster, but I find it too interesting to completely dismiss. It's also well-photographed by William A. Fraker (Rosemary's Baby), I find a lot of the Africa scenes to be quite visually stunning. There's a lot in the film that's rather silly, and a few things that make no sense whatsoever (can anyone explain James Earl Jones wearing a locust costume and saying "If Pazuzu brushes you with his wings, I will spit a leopard?"), but also a lot that I find intriguing (didn't Martin Scorsese put it on a list of his favorite "guilty pleasures"?). Of course, it probably helps that I'm one of the 5 or 6 people on the planet who thinks that Boorman's Zardoz is a genuinely interesting science fiction film.

The Harlin version of Exorcist: The Beginning might be somewhat interesting to compare to the Schrader version when they both hit DVD, but for now, I'm inclined to steer clear. Someone compared it to a Lucio Fulci movie, and I generally don't Fulci (I do like other Italian horror directors like Dario Argento and Mario Bava), so that's probably not a good sign.
ColonelKong
post #10  on August 24, 2004 - 8:12 PM PDT  
>and I generally don't Fulci

I generally don't like Fulci I mean.
DLeonard
post #11  on August 25, 2004 - 12:26 AM PDT  
> On August 24, 2004 - 8:11 PM PDT ColonelKong wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I rather like Exorcist III myself, it has its share of problems...If nothing else, I think it has the most expertly directed scare scene in any of the Exorcist movies.
> ---------------------------------


Well I'm baffled. What would that moment be?

Also, that "spider scene" in the Version Never Seen looks cool, but it ruins the mood and build of the film. The scene is practically the first weird thing to happen and it's a whopper. It just doesn't work as well as the gradual build of the original.

And oh yeah, Friedkin is a freak. No two ways around it.
ColonelKong
post #12  on August 25, 2004 - 8:54 AM PDT  
> On August 25, 2004 - 12:26 AM PDT DLeonard wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On August 24, 2004 - 8:11 PM PDT ColonelKong wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > I rather like Exorcist III myself, it has its share of problems...If nothing else, I think it has the most expertly directed scare scene in any of the Exorcist movies.
> > ---------------------------------
>
>
> Well I'm baffled. What would that moment be?

You don't remember the decapitation scene in the hospital with the long buildup?
DLeonard
post #13  on August 25, 2004 - 11:17 AM PDT  
> On August 25, 2004 - 8:54 AM PDT ColonelKong wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On August 25, 2004 - 12:26 AM PDT DLeonard wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > > On August 24, 2004 - 8:11 PM PDT ColonelKong wrote:
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > I rather like Exorcist III myself, it has its share of problems...If nothing else, I think it has the most expertly directed scare scene in any of the Exorcist movies.
> > > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> > Well I'm baffled. What would that moment be?
>
> You don't remember the decapitation scene in the hospital with the long buildup?
> ---------------------------------


Ummmmmmmmm, no.
But then again, I would probably have a difficult time recalling any particular moment from the movie.
stypee
post #14  on August 27, 2004 - 6:42 PM PDT  
So I saw that dam EXORCIST movie today... Please forgive the naughty words.

I finally experienced this piece of shit at a matinee today. I seriously think the so-called "Exorcist curse" that the E! True Hollywood Special so proudly claims had struck me hard. I'll explain that bit later..

What the fuck where they thinking? That's my question. It was so painfully evident that the "screenwriters" (you know there was more than just one) were just tossing ideas and writing them down without giving the FINAL DRAFT a second look. The film has these moments that just linger and what really pissed me off was that it relied so much on sound effects for scares. If you didn't or don't see this in a DTS theatre, your not going to jump (as many critics, who hated the film, claimed did happen) out of your seat. Sure, the original didn't have the technology we have today to create those sounds but for cry in out loud (no pun intended) what a cheap cop out.

This film desperatly needed to be cut down to an hour and a half. It had no reason to run a little over two hours. The silly subplots where outlandish, unsympathtic and not at all believable. The "Nazi" theme made no sense and didn't explain any true reason as to why Father Merran lost his faith (aside from that absurd kid flashback).

When we hit the confrontation it just stalls and it feels and looks so freaking silly. The make up effects were absurd and when the infamous demon is cast out there was no reason for what happen when the "possessed" hit the ground.

That set up for another sequel was even worse and yes the CGI is crap. Twice as bad as that freaking shark movie he directed (which if you look at the script, wasn't bad, it just went into the wrong hands) and that leads me to the infamous question.. WHY ON EARTH DO THEY LET RENNY HARLIN MAKE MOVIES?

I'm willing to be that the Schrader version was far superior than this piece of crap. It more than likely worked on a more cerebral level than a "scary one". Mainstream audiences don't like to think, they have to have everything handed to them on a silver platter. Much like watching a HARRY POTTER MOVIE, everything has to be constantly explained.

I cannot forgive this piece of shit. I want my 5.75 back.

-I Forgot about the "Exorcist Curse"

After the film I had a few errands I had to run. On the drive my car started acting up, lights started flickering, that type of shit. I knew what the problem was and just prayed I could get it to the mechanic on time (fucking catylitic converter again, third time!) before it stopped. What was really creepy was my "anti-lock brake" light stayed on and just illuminated this orange glow as if I was going to crash into something. I made it to the mechanic but it doesn't look like I'll have a car this weekend (last time this happened they said I had a warranty on the fucker, they better not be jacking me off) I just assumed I was "cursed", it hasn't exactly been a great month for myself or my family. This just topped it off.


about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.