MovieChat Forums > Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) Discussion > Am I the only one who actually though th...

Am I the only one who actually though this film was good?

posted 15 years ago by davies_chloe
42 replies | jump to latest

I thing this film is much better than the boring, not creepy Dominion! I found this one nearly as frightening as the original Exorcist... Okay, not as scary, but closer than the Heretic, or Dominion! Especially when Sarah was possessed, and she was going upside down to stop Joseph from leaving the Church. I'm reading that people on here are saying this movie isn't frightening and boring, and the director was a lousy one etc. The only thing that they made a mistake with is when the dig, and that Pauzuzu was in Africa, but in the original Exorcist, it was found in Iraq. That's what they made a mistake with! Other than that, I though this movie was pretty darn good!

[–] fannyfajaryanto 12 years ago

yes, I thought so. I believe this movie along together with "The Exorcist III" are the best "Exorcist" franchises...

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 12 years ago

This movie definitely doesn't deserve the degree of hatred it's gotten over the past few years. It's no better or worse than The Exorcist 2: The Heretic. It's just not powerful enough to knock my head back and give me chills, like the original masterpiece.

[–] thandon_s 12 years ago

No, you're not the only one.
This one is not scary, at all. But story-wise, it isn't bad.

I think people bashed this movie to the ground because they expected it to be as scary as the first one (though I don't think that one is scary either).

Nothing ruins movies worse than expectations.

[–] seaview18 11 years ago

I think this was a true prequel and better then the other film. One reason is cause Sarah swears.

[IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/qznqfp.jpg[/IMG]
Keep away the sow is mine!

[–] legacy12344 11 years ago

This was my favorite exorcist movie. It is shocking that this is a 5 but Conjouring is a 8. I thought this movie was way better.

[–] freedom-from-sanity 10 years ago

2 things ruin this film. The poor CGI, as stated earlier, and the tunnel run at the end. I thought the tunnel scene was just shocking. Otherwise an interesting movie. Still could have been better though as the idea behind it was very good. Would have made a better film I think if they weren't aiming it as a prequel to the Exorcist.
If they had made it as a stand alone film they wouldn't have needed to throw in an exorcism at the end and could have could have done so much more with it.

[–] Kent_Kainer 10 years ago

When Francis suddenly dangled down the ceiling (dead) I even laughed unintended because it was so cheap... that was exactly like the sudden appearances of those skeletons in the ghost train/haunted house on a funfair I often visited as child and young teen.

And the other meant-to-shock scenes were just too similar to that.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

[–] gss2 9 years ago

This movie is definitely more interesting than the first exorcist, and it is certainly a lot better than the second. It's not a great film, but it's atmospheric and full of exotic times and locations. The acting is first rate, which makes up for a lot of the film's other short comings. I gave it a 6/10, which is slightly better than but more or less in agreement with the imdb score.

[–] rc1990 9 years ago

I think the film is pretty bad but the premise is very interesting. There are also many shorts scenes that turn out to be very good and creepy. The cast is overall decent but the CGI is beyond awful and the writing is laughable at best.
There are also several tiny bits that make the whole movie seem cheap (you'd think the demon's voice and laugh came straight out of scary movie 2), most of them at the end. Anyway, even though I still think it's bad, it was entertaining enough and nowhere as bad the second film.

[–] jellyneckr 9 years ago

The thing about this movie is even though the terrible finale pretty much kills everything that came before, this is absolutely the best-looking bad movie I've ever seen. The cinematography is gorgeous, and that itself almost redeems the film. If someone cut out about half the ridiculously cheap jump scares/shots of gore for the sake of gore, and tweaked the ending (say the last 10 minutes or so), this could have been a solid sequel. It still might not have been worthy as a sequel to The Exorcist, but I guarantee that it would have a much better reputation.

[–] Hemorrhage911 9 years ago

I also noticed this as well. The way it was filmed captured the time period very well with the color textures. It's actually on right now, and I doubt it was changed much since it's original release, but it's as beautiful as ever. The director certainly knows what he's doing with the camera.