|
1973's
"The Exorcist" was directed by
William Friedkin and based off of William
Peter Blatty's novel of the same name. It
was an enormous hit and remains ingrained
in people's minds to this day. Photo courtesy
of Warner Bros.
Izabella
Scorupco stars opposite Stellan Skarsgård
in Renny Harlin's'"Exorcist: The Beginning,"
which takes place after the second world
war and before the events of the terrifying
first film. Photo courtesy of Warner Bros.
"Exorcist:
The Beginning" reaches new level of
absurdity
By
Ted Goslin
Online Forty-Niner
Staff Writer
In
anticipation for a film people often make
their way to the video stores to grab a
DVD that relates to the one they're about
to watch, or, in the case of the film reviewed
here, a sequel. They watch to prepare themselves
for one of two things: either a better film
or a huge disappointment. "Exorcist:
The Beginning" was, at most, a disappointment.
Taking
place before the original "Exorcist,"
this film is set in a post World War II
village in Africa. After a boy is taken
ill, his family, tribe and another priest
believe that a demon has possessed his body.
Sent to a small village to investigate not
only the boy's illness but also a mysterious
church that appeared out of the sand, Father
Merrin, played by Stellan Skarsgård,
attempts to uncover the origin of the church.
The
initial build-up of the film is good. A
slow but steady pace reveals frightening
little images here and there to foreshadow
the horror that is to come. One nice touch
was a cross on a wall that is hung upside
down then turned around by Merrin only to
be flipped over again when he turns his
back to it.
Unfortunately,
the good omens wouldn't last; creative little
horror ideas quickly make way for the modern
fright fest, turning "Exorcist: The
Beginning" into a typical Hollywood
movie. Music becomes the key ingredient
in telling us when we, the audience, should
be scared instead of letting us decide what
is scary and what is downright ridiculous.
In
the 1970's, cinema was largely experimental
and created some of the biggest blockbuster
franchises of all time, including "The
Godfather" and "Star Wars"
series.
With
"The Exorcist" and its two sequels,
cinema was introduced to a new form of horror
— psychological. This is one reason
that "The Exorcist" is widely
considered to be the scariest movie of all
time.
The
first film in the series, and unquestionably
the best, used several key elements to tell
the story that added to the horror. First,
the music. In key places during the original
film there was silence. In the new film
the music is utilized to scare the audience
rather than letting the scene and actors
influence the mood.
Other
highlights of the original film were the
use of animatronics, flawless make-up and
great acting, which all added to the authenticity
that made the audience wonder if the little
girl really was possessed; the use of computer
generated graphics in the new film, however,
makes it look hardly believable. It's as
if some Internet horror fan told the director
how cool it would be to see the monster
climb on walls.
Though
I would love to give away the overdone ending
to this masterful collage of old versus
new, I won't so that those of you who are
curious will get a chance to make up your
own minds.
This
film, although it had its moments, didn't
deserve to have the same title as its predecessor.
It failed at its attempt to change the style
of the original to make it modern and "Hollywoodize"
it to go along with most other horror films
of today that have no substance or character.
|
