EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING

"God is not here today"

Having a crisis of faith after witnessing the evils of man during the Second World War, Lankester Merrin (Skarsgård) has left the Catholic Church to pursue a career in archaeology. When he is asked to visit a dig in Kenya, were it is claimed they have uncovered a church that dates back to 500 AD hundreds of years before Christianity reached that part of Africa, he discovers that the church was not built to praise God but to contain evil.

Most of you who have watched The Exorcist will have always wondered why Father Merrin is walking out of the desert at the beginning of the movie. Now we have a prequel but does this film finally answer that question? No.

In what must be the biggest wasted opportunity in sequel history, Exorcist: The Beginning does nothing to answer any of the questions that have plagued the franchise since it first spat itself onto the screen in 1973. As the movie progresses you think this might actually be setting the scene for the first one but you would be sadly mistaken. While we do find out why Father Merrin became involved in exorcisms and we see his introduction to the demon that would haunt him later in life, the film simply doesn't answer the questions that have plagued fans for years.

As well as these inconsistencies, the movie is just, for want of a better word, awful. The plot is initially intriguing. It revolves around the discovery of an ancient church in Africa that dates back to 500 AD, hundreds of years before Christianity came to the region, which holds a dark secret. It is actually the place where Lucifer fell when God cast him out of heaven. On its discovery, the Vatican built a church over the site to contain the evil that resided there. This is an interesting premise and a good way of introducing Merrin to the evil presence that would blight his life but the filmmakers don't take advantage of it.

Instead they deliver a clichéd filled script that is basically is a "guess who is possessed?" story. Forgoing an chance of see more backstory or answering questions as to why the place was so evil you just end up waiting to see who becomes the foul-mouthed, cut faced possessed creature that loves to talk about sex. This might have been shocking in 1973 but demonic possession needs to be something more terrifying than just someone who swears a lot. A decent cast can't even save this from the depths of cinematic hell. Stellan Skarsgård is a good actor but even he can't do anything with the appalling line she has been give but he does well with the exorcist ritual verse during the finally. Izabella Scorupco, as Sarah, deserves a chance, as she is a talented actress that seems to be plagued by the curse of the Bond Girl after appearing in Goldeneye. James D'Arcy's Father Francis is criminally underdeveloped and the rest of the cast don't really get a look in.

Exorcist: The Beginning was a trouble movie from the start. This is in fact the second version of the film after the studio for rejected the first one by director Paul Schrader for not been scary enough. The problem is that Renny Harlin's attempt isn't scary either and just lives on the laurels of the original, not injecting anything new into the franchise. This is a movie that didn't need to be made and another example of how Hollywood has lost all invention and originally, if it needs to continue to dig up its past.

You'd need to be possessed to like this movie.