Hollywood remakes are usually worse. just saw the film and yes the Hollywood remake is nowhere close to this great masterpiece. small intricacies, dialogues and excellent characterization along with brilliant use of humor make it excellent and beyond comparison. this is a landmark masterpiece. no one can match Vittoria Gassman. you know what he thinks and what kind of person he is and how he would react in a particular situation. great direction. whats amazing is the way a blind man is made so intertingly funny that you do not want to blink, you may miss somethin. a must see
Reviews
2 Reviews
Exorcist: The Beginning
(2004)
It should'nt have been related to the original EXORCIST
18 October 2004
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILER**
This flick just hurts anyone's respect for the original.
I somehow sat through this movie waiting for it to get over. But after I left the theater i found myself quit satisfied. The movie starts off very slow. The second half is much better.
MY SINCERE AND HONEST ADVICE TO ALL WHO WANT TO MAKE CULT HORRORs Do not use special fx and cgi. Its just cripples the over all effect of the whole movie. Instead use good makeup and story. Blaire witch project, evil dead, exorcist and many other movies did not need these FX. Even if used they are unnoticeable.
The whole story of exorcist tells you one thing. It was made for financial income. The studio must having a bad time and thought of harping on the Exorcist fame. Since the writing credits go to william peter blatty, i assume he was forced to write it for financial gains.
Their are just so many things which are inexplicable and you would never know why it is so. Or some one here can please tell me. Why was she after the boy? what was so special about the boy? It could have been anyone. And since it was not the Boy. How come the hyena's did not attack him?
Some of the humour and pun used was not needed. As far as i remember their is not a single line in the original which would make you smirk. every line should make the character stronger and tell us more about him. Yes characterization was crap. If you see Father merrin in the original is a completely different person than in this movie. Again you can argue that the prequel incident made him so. But i just can't relate him to the original Old Man Merrin played extrafabulously by Max Von Sydow.
The camera angles should have been more realistic. In the original it was always shown from a viewable pov making it more realistic. and not some dynamic crane shots and zooms they should have been avoided in this prequel.
The kid was used to have some relating factor between the original and this prequel. But he is no match to Linda Blair.
there are just soo many cons in this whole movie. it just doesn't come to even being an average flick. Its just a wannabe.
I don't think there's a reason anyone should see this flick.
This flick just hurts anyone's respect for the original.
I somehow sat through this movie waiting for it to get over. But after I left the theater i found myself quit satisfied. The movie starts off very slow. The second half is much better.
MY SINCERE AND HONEST ADVICE TO ALL WHO WANT TO MAKE CULT HORRORs Do not use special fx and cgi. Its just cripples the over all effect of the whole movie. Instead use good makeup and story. Blaire witch project, evil dead, exorcist and many other movies did not need these FX. Even if used they are unnoticeable.
The whole story of exorcist tells you one thing. It was made for financial income. The studio must having a bad time and thought of harping on the Exorcist fame. Since the writing credits go to william peter blatty, i assume he was forced to write it for financial gains.
Their are just so many things which are inexplicable and you would never know why it is so. Or some one here can please tell me. Why was she after the boy? what was so special about the boy? It could have been anyone. And since it was not the Boy. How come the hyena's did not attack him?
Some of the humour and pun used was not needed. As far as i remember their is not a single line in the original which would make you smirk. every line should make the character stronger and tell us more about him. Yes characterization was crap. If you see Father merrin in the original is a completely different person than in this movie. Again you can argue that the prequel incident made him so. But i just can't relate him to the original Old Man Merrin played extrafabulously by Max Von Sydow.
The camera angles should have been more realistic. In the original it was always shown from a viewable pov making it more realistic. and not some dynamic crane shots and zooms they should have been avoided in this prequel.
The kid was used to have some relating factor between the original and this prequel. But he is no match to Linda Blair.
there are just soo many cons in this whole movie. it just doesn't come to even being an average flick. Its just a wannabe.
I don't think there's a reason anyone should see this flick.
Tell Your Friends