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.

Filipe Neto This film is the personal Paul Schrader's version of the prequel "The Exorcist: The Beginning", that he had envisioned before being removed from the direction of this film. So, it was a film shot by vanity. In any case, there is no doubt that this director is much superior, in quality and competence, than the man who found him to replace him in "Beginning", and this is reflected in the comparison between both films. Which of the directors copied the other is that I don't know because they made two movies that are practically Siamese twins surgically separated. This film also tells of the first confrontation between the devil Pazuzu and Father Merrin, is also a prequel to "The Exorcist", it also includes a Byzantine chapel buried in Africa (even bad ideas were maintained by both, since the Byzantines have never been in Kenya and neither does the chapel seem Byzantine) and also includes Stellan Skarsgård in the lead role. However, this film is superior in the way the plot is developed and closed, and in the way the horror is presented: drier, less fanciful and visual, with more containment and care in the special effects and a greater attention to the suspense, so necessary in horror. The film also attempts to weave several theological and philosophical ideas opposing the Catholic faith, the native beliefs, the skepticism of science and the occult and supernatural forces, in a broth of ideas that ends up not having a clear orientation nor carrying an evident idea or message. It's generally better than "Beginning", but it's still a long way from being a really good movie.

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!

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.