Should I see it?
No.
Short Review: Apparently, Satan’s latest ploy is to bore us into complacency.Thanks to some rather stupid executive decision making, there were two separate films made to be the prequel to the horror classic The Exorcist. This version was the first to be completed. The story is this: director Paul Schrader handed this rendition of the story to the heads of Morgan Creek. Upon seeing a mature, risky film, the brain trust over at Morgan Creek decided that it was not commercial enough for their needs. After all, this film was thoughtful and made for adults. These geniuses decided to forgo the re-shooting of key scenes, re-editing of others and decided to throw everything out. In a further move of pristine intelligence and marketing brilliance, the suits at Morgan Creek canned Schrader and hired Hollywood’s used car salesman Renny “I never met a film I couldn’t ruin” Harlan. They brought Harlin on to remake the whole darn thing. Dropping Schrader for Harlin is like dropping Lawrence Oliver for Carrot Top. Sure, they can both put on a show but…While not a marvel, this movie is still rather solid. Unlike the Harlin version, which is more cartoon than movie, this film takes itself and its subject matter seriously. In addition, unlike Harlin’s version, this film is watchable. Stellan Skarsgård plays the young Father Merrin with a troubled, haunted intensity that captivates the screen. Skarsgård is very strong in this role, (he should be since he had to play it twice.) His Father Merrin is a fully realized character that speaks to the spiritual conflict Schrader attempts to explore with this story. The rest of the cast is passable but nothing special. They all orbit around Skarsgård's brooding performance. Regardless of Skarsgård's work, this film doesn't capture the essence of the original piece. I believe the story itself is to blame for the film ultimately not succeeding. The evil in this film doesn’t emanate from a tangible source. It is more of a haunting than a possession story. Father Mirren is not confronted by the nemesis in physical form until the final third of the film. This means Mirren spends most of the movie sulking about as we wait for the inevitable possession scene to take place. This is where The Exorcist wins. Regan, the possessed girl in the original film, is a physical manifestation of evil. We had something to sink our collective movie watching teeth into. The use of a suggestive possession in this film is interesting and should have been explored in a novel, not on screen. This is a movie, we like to see things move.The issues of the missing nemesis aside, this film delves into sin in a way that few other films have ever tried. There are two scenes in the film that are quite striking. We are shown Father Mirren during World War II where he is forced into his own brand of Sophie’s Choice. The residual guilt he feels from this terrible time in his life (I won’t go into details as to not ruin the movie) is the breeding ground from which Satan plies his wares against the Father in later life. There are some wonderful discussions and glimpses into sin and how one reacts to sin can lead one to the embrace of darkness. This film deserves great credit for doing something Hollywood steadfastly has refused to do, to take evil seriously.Overall, this is a far superior film to the other prequel, which was released last year to an appropriate dead silence. Schrader’s version is a film made by a serious filmmaker trying to do what he was paid to do, entertain and inform on the human condition. This film fails on the first charge and succeeds on the second.
Related Reviews:
The Exorcist: The Beginning (2004)
The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005)
Other Critic's Reviews:
Arrow in the Head
Roger Ebert
Labels: film, movie review, Paul Schrader, Renny Harlin, Stellan Skarsgård
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home