Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

paulclaassen I found it fascinating at first, but it then dwindles to a boring talkie with a bit of action now and then. There were no real scares and it wasn't really frightening or disturbing, as we've come to expect from Exorcist movies. The CGI effects were very stocky, especially the animals. The hyenas were so stocky it was like watching a video game. As the film progressed, I related less and less to it, and later, found it very boring.

olly-pop If you look this film up, you can read a wealth of information about how terrible the initial reviews were for it. It was re-released under 'Exorcist: The Beginning' which was essentially just a different edit and a desperate attempt to salvage the whole project. If you're a fan of the original 'The Exorcist' don't feel drawn towards this film as the two are unrelated. In fact, William Peter Blatty, the author/screenwriter of it, said that watching Exorcist: The Beginning was his "most humiliating professional experience." I love horror films and am totally open to anything low budget or a little odd. This is both with dire acting, scripting and special effects. I'm surprised it managed to reach the vote it did on IMDb and can only presume there are some very vocal die-hard fans out there. The film is poor in almost every way imaginable and my sincere advice, avoid like the plague!

T Y This is awful in a different way than the execrable Renny Harlin version. There is no scene you can point to that convinces you why Paul Schrader had to make this movie. He's made some real junk before, but it's shocking to see a Schrader movie that invokes no ideas whatsoever. To pretend like this has depth (and that was the reason it was suppressed) requires completely broken sense organs. Schrader can mark 2005 as the year he finally sold his soul completely, and eradicated the very last spark of intellect in his movies. Not helping things, is Gabriel Mann as Father Francis, who weighs about 95 pounds, has a distractingly sunken chest, and is off-putting in his over-emoting and sincerity. He is a very poor actor, and I was rooting for the earnest, whiny runt to get it good. Catholic overdramatics are the whole show. The possessed figure this time is silly and poorly dubbed. If you can't do better than Regan in '74 you really should skip the movie. Schrader is too much of a visual pornographer (pretty surfaces) to get anything out of this. All the sets, which are supposed to look eons old instead look like they were constructed one week earlier, then scrubbed clean again, an hour before filming. Skarsgaard goes for a contemplative evening walk at one point and passes multiple bright, sparkling clean brick walls that look exactly like a cheap set.

morethansupernatural I am not going to go into any detail other than what is needed to be said. Many have slated this for poorer special effects than were meant to be available at the time. Many people slate it for taking place in only a very few places. These would be fine complaints to a large budget film - but the studio was more interested in funding the Renny Harlin version of schlock horror "exorcist" than helping Paul Schrader to achieve his own superior idea here. Left largely out the dry, he did its best.A film must be rated against its circumstances. And for a low budget film that defied it's original studio to be made and come out such a well written and well acted piece, is enough to be forgiven for minimal sets and dated effects. If anything, the fact they pushed on and their dedication is clear in every shot, makes me appreciate their efforts even more.Not just a film about faith and good battling evil, but about faith and an independent director battling the studio. See it.