Sounds good but I could hardly make it through the first two paragraphs of the reviewer kissing his own ass.
The review also does sound like its hyping it up a bit much. As stupid as the studio execs might have been, they wouldn't choose Harlin's version over the masterpiece that this review makes it out to be.
DeputyDave
03-16-05, 08:13 PM
Looks good. If this is real i'm looking forward to it. I didn't notice if he said when (and what form) we might see it. The slobering fawning of the review was a bit hard to take.
JumpCutz
03-16-05, 10:12 PM
There's also a second review up that's equally gushing.
Paul Schrader is a huge talent in my eyes, I'm glad this is finally seeing the light of day.
scott shelton
03-16-05, 10:58 PM
The slobering fawning of the review was a bit hard to take.
Agreed. I'm sure the majority of the reviews for this film are going to be glowing, regardless of actual quality. The critics just want to make a point.
I'm curious about the film, but I don't have much trust in Schrader.
Cygnet74
03-17-05, 05:25 AM
Agreed. I'm sure the majority of the reviews for this film are going to be glowing, regardless of actual quality. The critics just want to make a point.you don't think it's a point worth making?
harosa
03-17-05, 05:53 AM
I cant trust horror sites anymore, a drop of blood in a movie and they generally gush over it. Harlin's version was made for most of these knuckleheads and they probably would have loved it if there never was a Schrader version to compare it to. Harlin's verison was not great but it wasnt as horrid as some want to believe. Listening to Harlin's commentray, the man was under the gun and had a smaller budget than usual to work with and I think what came out was decent, only bad thing is that Harlin makes no mention AT ALL about the history of this production whch made me wonder if he was told beforehand not to. I agree with most that Schrader will get a pass just because it'll be the cool thing to do, as I think Romero will when his Dead movie comes out just becasue everyone's been clamoring for himto do a dead film that it will get love no matter if its bad or good.
mzupeman2
03-17-05, 08:50 AM
Harlin's version was made for most of these knuckleheads and they probably would have loved it if there never was a Schrader version to compare it to. Harlin's verison was not great but it wasnt as horrid as some want to believe. Listening to Harlin's commentray, the man was under the gun and had a smaller budget than usual to work with and I think what came out was decent, only bad thing is that Harlin makes no mention AT ALL about the history of this production whch made me wonder if he was told beforehand not to.
Couldn't have said that better myself. The Harlin version got bashed so much, just because it was the underdog really of the Exorcist films. The Schrader version got nixed and people got very upset, as its hype sounded much more promising than what the Harlin version delivered. I'm still anxiously awaiting the Schrader version very much, as I believe it most likely IS going to be the better film... this film I can't wait to see when it will be available for me to see. But, all in all I really didn't think the Harlin version was that bad. Again, it wasn't great or anything, but it wasn't bad either.
auto
03-17-05, 09:17 AM
I agree with most that Schrader will get a pass just because it'll be the cool thing to do, as I think Romero will when his Dead movie comes out just becasue everyone's been clamoring for himto do a dead film that it will get love no matter if its bad or good.
Yep. Like all the Star Wars fans did for George Lucas and 'Phantom Menace'. :rolleyes:
Geofferson
03-17-05, 09:40 AM
Excellent..thanks for the link!
LiquidSky
03-17-05, 10:32 AM
[QUOTE=harosa]I cant trust horror sites anymore, a drop of blood in a movie and they generally gush over it. Harlin's version was made for most of these knuckleheads and they probably would have loved it if there never was a Schrader version to compare it to.QUOTE]
That seems to be a rather blanket generalization. I frequent some horror boards, and not everyone is like that, although I am sure some are. I'm a huge horror fan and do not judge my like or dislike of a film based on the amount of gore.
harosa
03-17-05, 03:49 PM
My opinion was based more on the people who run the sites, and I guess my friend's opinion on them rubbed off on me a little bit because I actually like some of the new stuff they gush over but they do seem rather easy to please alot of times. Dead and Breakfast and Undead are some prime examples of what i think are just bad movies that get some unreal love, I loved Haute Tension and Dead End but those got alot of negative press from some after they were released, I think by people being fooled by the major love they got.
Abob Teff
03-17-05, 11:59 PM
I'm another one who doesn't think that the Renny Harlin version is quite as bad as it seems. The concept that they had was good one, the groundwork is there (cough*Schrader*cough). However, you take into consideration that Harlin was 10 months from page 1 of the script to the screen and, while it really shows, he did the best with a bad lot . . . despite feelings on his prior works. The special effects were utterly horrible. The characters were not properly fleshed out and the story was thrown together. But he did what he could with what he had.
Personally, I cannot wait for the Schrader version!
Venom
03-18-05, 02:33 AM
it will be a nice experiment to see the Schrader version. i look forward to seeing it very much.
with that said the version we got wasn't all that bad. for christsake it's the exorcist we're talking about. nothing is going to ever top it or even come close. we horror fans, as well as the world at large, are completely jaded. i did the exorcist, but even i at times think it's totally silly and not very horrific. times have changed. a little girl being obscene and cursing isn't that much these days. you can find more horrible stuff on the news these days. so the idea of wanting the exorcist begining to even come close to the original is insane. no movie that i can far see will ever come close to capturing the feel of the first (although, i do find the 3rd to be the best.)
but given the crap that the studios give of horror fans, it wasn't so bad at all. nothing groundbreaking, but i'd take it over the boogie man, alone in the dark, darkness, etc any day.
DonnachaOne
03-18-05, 03:02 AM
I didn't think anyone ws looking for a film that would TOP The Exorcist, just be a worthy followup (in this case, leadup), similar in tone and feel. Harlin's Exorcist: The Beginning was a well-shot, but boring mess that confused "horror" with "horrible".
FinkPish
03-19-05, 04:25 AM
CHUD.com has excerpts from Variety's review, and sounds generally favorable. The author of the CHUD article also comments on the overwrought reviews from some of these fan sites that can do more harm than good.
http://chud.com/news/1973
scott shelton
03-20-05, 10:57 AM
VARIETY REVIEW
Exorcist: The Prequel
A Morgan Creek, DFW Dutch Filmworks presentation of a Morgan Creek production. Produced by James G. Robinson. Executive producers, Guy McElwaine, David Robinson. Co-producers, Art Shaeffer, Wayne Morris. Directed by Paul Schrader. Screenplay, William Wisher, Caleb Carr.
Lankester Merrin - Stellan Skarsgard
Father Francis - Gabriel Mann
Rachel Lesno - Clara Bellar
Sergeant-Major - Ralph Brown
Jomo - Israel Adurama
Chuma - Andrew French
Kessel - Antoine Kamerling
Major Granville - Julian Wadham
Emekwi - Eddie Osei
Sebituana - Ilario Bisi-Pedro
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By LESLIE FELPERIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two years after being shelved by producing company Morgan Creek -- and almost entirely reshot by Renny Harlin as "Exorcist: The Beginning" -- helmer Paul Schrader's "Exorcist: The Prequel" finally emerges from its crypt: Result is hardly a diabolical failure, if not quite a heavenly masterpiece. Schrader's intelligent, quietly subversive pic emphasizes spiritual agony over horror ecstasy, while paying occasional lip-service to the need for scares. Probably too talky and angsty for mainstream auds, this version could claw some cash back, especially on ancillary, from the need-to-see factor alone.
In Belgium, where it world preemed at the Brussels Intl. Fantasy Festival March 18, pic will be theatrically released as "Paul Schrader's Exorcist: The Original Prequel." Legal wrangling is still going on over whether the movie will get any U.S. release, though title is likely to remain that on print caught: "Exorcist: The Prequel."
Those familiar with Harlin's version, released by Warners last summer to an $82 million worldwide gross split evenly between domestic and foreign, will immediately recognize the broad span of the plot is much the same, albeit with variations that crucially shift emphasis. Opening scene set in 1944 Holland finds Father Lankester Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) forced by a Nazi officer (Antoine Kamerling, who like Skarsgard and many of the supporting thesps, also appeared in Harlin's version) to choose 10 of his flock to die, a trauma that shakes his faith.
The first person the Nazi shoots in Schrader's pic is a grown woman, whereas in Harlin's it's a cute, braided-hair moppet -- which pretty much sums up the difference in tone between the two.
Action jumps to 1947. Merrin, on "temporary sabbatical" from the priesthood, has become an archeologist in British East Africa (modern-day Kenya, repped by Morocco) and has uncovered a mysterious 5th century Byzantine church. Father Francis (Gabriel Mann; replaced by James D'Arcy in the Harlin version) is assigned by the Catholic Church to keep an eye on Merrin, while British officer Major Granville (Julian Wadham, also in Harlin's version) keeps an eye on the restless native Turkana tribe.
Also living near the dig are doctor Rachel Lesno (Clara Bellar), a Holocaust survivor; Chuma (Andrew French), the translator-liaison between the Turkana and the whites; and crippled teen Cheche (Philippines-born popstar Billy Crawford), an outcast Merrin befriends.
As the crew digs deeper, it becomes clear the church was not intended for worship but more as a consecrated plughole -- to keep the evil in its ancient crypt from escaping.
Unlike in Harlin's movie, where there's a twist at the end over exactly who is possessed, here it's made clear early on that it's Cheche. As the teen's limbs heal and skin clears, the film slyly reverses the franchise's normal trajectory, which dictates that the stronger the possession the more impasto the make-up job. By the end, Cheche looks like a creamy-complexioned little Buddha, sitting cross-legged in a loincloth.
While the final reels make less theological sense and partly degenerate into metronomic horror beats, pic's midsection is impressively meaty and smart -- with a dense feel to virtually every scene, as in Schrader's best work like "American Gigolo," "Mishima" and "Light Sleeper."
Ever the film buff, Schrader even includes a surrealist homage to the dream sequence in Hitchcock's "Spellbound." With its floating clocks and bandaged figures, it's more unsettling than any of the CGI in the rest of the movie.
Likewise, a note of authentic horror is rung when a whole schoolhouse of innocents is slaughtered by Turkana tribesmen, a sequence absent from the Harlin version. Woven throughout are extended arguments between Merrin, Rachel and Father Francis about faith and the nature of evil which play far better here -- in a screenplay credited to William Wisher and Caleb Carr -- than in the more dumbed-down Harlin version. It's worth noting, however, that some of the most memorable lines survived in Alexi Hawley's rewrite for Harlin.
Though the movie is about demonic possession, the audience is reminded of mankind's own capacity for evil, including Nazism and colonialism. It's the kind of message that must have struck real horror into Morgan Creek execs investing a reported $45 million into a franchise prequel.
Aside from the enormous success of William Friedkin's original pic, the franchise has long held a B.O. curse, with poor performances by both John Boorman's 1977 "Exorcist II: The Heretic" (1977) and the subsequent "Exorcist III" (1990), by the original novel's author, William Peter Blatty. Shortly before his death, John Frankenheimer was set to direct this long-mooted prequel, with Liam Neeson as Father Merrin.
Morgan Creek's surprise decision to hire Schrader, for the first franchise movie in his career, was both inspired and "what-were-they-thinking?" insane. Schrader has delivered a 100% Paul Schrader film, drenched in the spiritual and moral angst that's watermarked his career from "Taxi Driver" (as a writer) to "Auto Focus" (as a director).
As a drama about faith, infused with metaphor and doubt, film achieves moments of real cinematic poetry. It's the horror-movie shocks that are pic's least convincing component, especially given the ropey quality of the CGI work.
Performances are good to excellent. As Merrin, Skarsgard is in much better, more soulful form here than in the Harlin version, and some of the supporting players who worked on both films get a chance to show off real chops with better material. That's particularly the case with Wadham, Kamerling, and Ralph Brown as a racist sergeant-major (last ended up mostly on the cutting-room floor in Harlin's version).
Mann shines as a more neurotic Father Francis than D'Arcy in Harlin's version. On the distaff side, Bellar has a smaller but more complex part than Izabella Scorupco did in the Harlin movie, and makes more of it.
Tech side has similar personnel overlaps and variations. Cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, who shot both versions, downplays the drama here at first with a naturalistic look and then builds to some extraordinarily stylized, richly colored compositions. Production designer John Graysmark's version of the devil's crypt is both more authentic and creepier than the one in Harlin's version.
Camera (color, widescreen), Vittorio Storaro; editor, Tim Silano; music, Trevor Rabin, Angelo Badalamenti, Dog Fashion Disco; production designer, John Graysmark; supervising art director, Stefano Ortoliani; art directors, Marco Tretini (Morocco), Andy Nicholson (U.K.); costumes, Marco Scotti; sound supervisor (Dolby Digital/SDDS/DTS Digital), Matthew Waters; special effects supervisor, Daniel Bollettini; assistant director, Aaron Barsky; casting, Pam Dixon. Reviewed at Brussels Fantasy Film Festival, March 18, 2005. Running time: 111 MIN.
troystiffler
03-20-05, 11:21 AM
Never saw Harlin's version. But that Variety article has me excited.
Mad Dawg
03-20-05, 11:29 AM
Bring it on. The worst that could happen is a couple of more hours of Skarsgard's terrific Merrin. Even though he was given virtually nothing in Harlin's version, he was outstanding, IMO.
But it sounds like an entertaining flick.
JumpCutz
03-25-05, 09:58 PM
Good News! Looks like this will be fast-tracked into theaters.
I cannot wait! May 20 will go down in cinematic history as "The day that two follow-ups to shitty prequels were released!"
Rival11
04-16-05, 11:53 AM
Scott - I appreciate the Variety review. The two previous reviews were drenched in too much ass kissing.
I look forward to this as well and it has to be better than the Harlin version, It just has to be.
Cameron
04-17-05, 11:17 PM
I cannot wait! May 20 will go down in cinematic history as "The day that two follow-ups to shitty prequels were released!"
funny how someone can always crap on a star wars film....I'll check the Exorcist out on dvd....think I'll be busy watching a great movie that day....one from A long time ago...in a galaxy far far away.
RichC2
04-20-05, 01:28 PM
Roger Ebert also addressed Schrader's Exorcist prequel:
Q. I noticed that you did not review the prequel, "The Exorcist: The Beginning" that came out last year. Do you have something against the movies that continue the story of the original "Exorcist"?
Dan Harris, Brookings, S.D.
A. It was not previewed for critics, and I never caught up with it. I have, however, just seen Paul Schrader's original "The Exorcist: The Prequel," which was shelved by the studio, reportedly because it was "too serious." Renny Harlin was hired to make a version that replaced three of the four leads, spent $50 million on top of Schrader's $30 million, and the movie scored only 11 percent on the Tomatometer.
The Schrader version is a very good film, strong and true. It is intelligent about spiritual matters, sensitive to the complexities of its characters, and does something risky and daring in this time of jaded horror movies: It takes evil seriously. It will have a limited theatrical run next month before a DVD release.
More heaping praise, hampered by a stupid studio decision.
I'll be picking up the Schrader version blind, watching that, then renting the Harlin version just out of sheer curiousity.
Geofferson
05-09-05, 11:21 AM
I find it hilarious how Morgan Creek chief Jim Robinson now declares that he always intended for there to be a theatrical release for both visions of this movie. Riiiiiight...
Scott Connors
05-14-05, 06:16 PM
Is there a release date for the DVD? I also have heard that they will be releasing both the Schrader and Harlin versions together. This pleases me to no end, since I have been holding off on purchasing "Exorcist: The Beginning" ever since I heard that Schrader's "Exorcist: The Prequel" (now "Dominion") would see release.
Incidentally, I also feel that Harlin is getting a bad rap. Then again, I liked "Cutthroat Island" and "The Long Kiss Goodnight" as well. There is no denying, though, that Schrader is the superior film maker, but that is no slight on Harlin.
Tyler_Durden
05-15-05, 02:39 PM
It's great that this is coming out. I'm lucky in the sense that I'll be able to see Schrader's version fresh. Then later I'll check out the Harlin version.
Geofferson
05-20-05, 09:57 AM
Ebert's 3-star review here (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050519/REVIEWS/50412001/1023).
I really would like to see this. Too bad it's not playing anywhere near me. :(
Mad Dawg
05-20-05, 10:46 AM
I'm looking forward to it, too. Luckily it is playing in several theaters here. One had to expect a lot of the luster to wear off once it got closer, though, and it's being treated pretty harshly by some of the major publications. Many are complaining that it is exactly what Robinson said it was.
Buy: