I watched that and it sounds as though the Shrader and Harlin are two distinct movies (the Harlin version only has a few establishing shots ported over from the Shrader film). The only similarities between the two are the same lead actor and cinematographer.

Uh oh! that sounds like SIGNS.

You guys afraid of religious stuff better look out.

Thanks for the link. Nice footnote at the bottom regarding Blatty's impression of Schrader's version.

I don't have much hope for either one, but I'm glad that MC will be releasing both versions.

I'm kinda excited for this.

An Ode to Renny Harlin

Renny Harlin Oh my gawd Oh my darlin' What a clod! His awful turds Will get a reaction What Hussein did to Kurds. He does to action His apparent stupidity It has no equal He stripped the validity Of the first Die Hard sequel. Instead of action scenes That were tough and had a brain We get fakey blue screens Of John flying out of a plane. It's all so frickin lame. Our hopes Harlin shatters The cast looks so ashamed Even Carl from Family Matters. But lo! That wasn't it. We weren't left alone For Harlin made more sh!t. This time with Sly Stallone. The movie's called Cliffhanger. It co-starred Michael Rooker. It's like a herpes-laden wanger After screwing a she-male hooker. The many special effects Are supposed to be a WOW! But you'll only reflect About the chin on John Lithgow. Next came Cutthroat Island. A movie I did not see. For I'd rather go to Thailand And have a guy chop off my wee. It was a huge bomb. The public got it right But when you thought he was gone Came The Long Kiss Goodnight. Does anyone else here think That it was a monumental crime That despite its awful stink This was the best selling script of all time? What did Shane Black write That made people so giddy? "She says a joke and they fight. Man I'm so damn witty!" And if you thought "Hark! Renny couldn't be more gay!" See his film with the shark That starred LL COOl J. It's like a turd-topped waffle With a side of toilet scum. The shark effects were awful. Worse than that ad for Trident gum. Harlin is the pits He'll never be forgiven For turning out more sh!t This time it was called Driven. He's made so much dung. He's such a f-cking dope That he should be hung From his long hair, instead of from a rope.

I really like the idea of being able to watch 2 different artistic interpretations (that is, if you call a Renny Harlin film an "artistic interpretation" - just kidding) of the same film. I wonder, when all is said and done, if Shrader's version will be the version that more people prefer, or if Harlin steps up and actually makes a good, serious film...

They are not the same film . . . the only things that they have in common is being part of the Exorcist and they both used the same DP. Schrader's film was completely scrapped (after completion, which is odd) and a new story was brought in.

Much like AVP, EXORCIST will not be press screened until Thursday night. Don't expect many reviews before then.

Well, since AvP and this are released in the latter three weeks of August, I expect Exorcist to be just like AvP - pure crap.

Are you the wrestler John Cena in disguise?

if the shrader version was scrapped it just had to be bad. Isn't this liek the first movie ever to get scrapped in favor of a whole new, revamped version?

Both of the movies have the same premise, its just that they both take a different route, which make both movies entirely different from one another.

The fact that there aren’t any early reviews for this film is very suspicious. They are really protecting this movie all the way up the release date…. If the film was good, why wouldn’t they allow people to review it? They are hiding what I believe is a terrible movie that should never have been made.

Well the movie mightve just had its final touches, because they had to hurry up with the movie to make its scheduled release date, but who knows, I dont see how this one could completley suck, i mean they went to the trouble of reshooting the whole movie for what? a little less suckier version? I dont think they would waste another 40mil just to do that, but who knows.

Do you work for the WB? That's the kind of b.s. answer studios give out when they don't want to screen a turkey. I've been to press screenings 3 weeks before a movie comes out, and they screened a workprint version for the press. As long as the movie is close enough to being done, they don't mind screening it. If it's going to get awful reviews...they DO mind screening it before hand.

Other movies that were never screened for critics:
The Astronaut's Wife
Alien Vs. Predator

It can not be worse than II and III....but it does not rellay matter at this point as those two turkeys have already ruined any future Exorcist movie from being sucessful or taken seriously.

Oh, c'mon. While it is highly unlikely that there are going to be any reviews of this movie before late Thursday evening, all we're allowed to do is speculate.

Fact 1) AVP did screen for the press, just on the Thursday night before opening.

Fact 2) It’s commonly understood that any film screening on the Thursday night before opening day is a film that the studio has little faith in. It doesn’t necessarily mean the film is awful (though that is usually the case). It means more that the studio is faced with a film (usually a genre pic) that THEY BELIEVE will get trounced in the opening day reviews, which hurts the box office. Wednesday night is typically deadline day, which means that anything reviewed on Thursday won’t be able to appear in the Friday papers.

Personal note: I like Renny Harlin – gasp! He’s a solid genre technician. I think the EXORCIST looks pretty good. End personal note.

But I understand the WB’s decision to screen this late. The film has had such negative publicity that even if it’s a weensy bit good, some vengeful critics will trash it out of love for Paul Schrader. And that’s the truth. The WB is playing it smart, even if it sucks for press trying to fashion a review page this week (grrrrrr).

Fact 3) Not screening a film at all means a studio is simply going for some quick first weekend bucks before the awful reviews and WOM from over the weekend comes crashing in. The last film that I can recall to not screen at all is MY BABY’S DADDY, but that’s a bad example since it did have screenings scheduled, but simply cancelled at the very last minute. It’s rare, but it does happen. I’m sorry I can’t provide better examples.

But pretty much every release is press screened. Even YU-GI-OH, even GIGLI (early too).

Seantn is right, if the studio has faith, they will screen a film in any condition. Workprints are not uncommon.

As for early reviews, EXORCIST has had exhibitor screenings already, and some upcoming “late night print checks for the 16 year-old theater crew” screenings (AICN is famous for these), so reviews could come from those sources. Hell, Slant has reviewed bootlegs in the past, so check there. Better yet, don’t. They suck.

Have you seen Exorcist 3?? Yes, the first sequel IS a pile of rat excrement but part 3 is an underrated and overlooked film, and pretty well liked on this board.

I hope it has some nice theological discussions as well as some gore, but I think this is more creature feature.

Umm yeah sure did...thought it was pretty much a pile of crap...not quite as bad as II though.

exorcist 3 was better than any horror film since, well exorcist 3. george c. scott was at his best. don't know why it's in the $5 bin at wal-mart, i would've payed $30 for it. that old lady creeps me out till this day. her climbing on the ceiling was freaky as hell.

The day before it opens and still no reviews. That's always a bad sign.

Too bad they couldn't mix both versions that were shot together or something for a better film.

Everything I've read said that Schraeder's version is a psychological film, and that Harlin's is a pure gore festival.

If this new movie is equal to Exorcist III than it should garner a Legion of fans..... including me, since I thought the third movie was superb.