User Score
4.6

Mixed or average reviews- based on 50 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 50
  2. Negative: 21 out of 50
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. MarcD.
    Oct 27, 2006
    6
    Lacks focus and any true sense of pace. It steers clear of the psychological themes and horror from the original, instead hoping to evoke some reactions by throwing as much ugly effects at us as possible. Unfortunately, fear doesn't work that way.
  2. JavierR.
    Oct 6, 2004
    4
    This movie is only a execise of horror and terror, that coused screams, but the drama is out of this film.
  3. RustyB
    Aug 29, 2004
    6
    It was decent, not as bad as everyone says it is. Has some freaky moments.
  4. VinceH.
    Aug 21, 2004
    5
    Not nearly as bad as you might think, but not that great either. I was looking foward to this very much towards the beginning with one of my favorite novelists doing the screenplay (Caleb Carr) and one of my fav directors on board (Paul Schrader). Unfortunately, Schrader was replaced by Renny Harlin (one of the single worst Hollywood directors of the 90's who makes Michael Bay look Not nearly as bad as you might think, but not that great either. I was looking foward to this very much towards the beginning with one of my favorite novelists doing the screenplay (Caleb Carr) and one of my fav directors on board (Paul Schrader). Unfortunately, Schrader was replaced by Renny Harlin (one of the single worst Hollywood directors of the 90's who makes Michael Bay look like Antonioni). Schrader's version will be released on the DVD (I am just waiting for the Ozu & Bresson references) but until then we must contend with Harlin's version. The dirty-brown visual sheen adds atmosphere and a sense of dread over the proceedings, and the movie has a good sense of pacing and narrative drive so that it never gets boring or tedious. On the other hand, Harlin relies too heavily on CGI-bugs, spiders, and guts to elicit response from the audience instead of actually trying to direct scenes so that they are scary (the frights include the usual walking-in-the-dark, quick camera pans that reveal people who weren't there, fast cuts towards strange sounds, etc.). This is a mediocre horror film but I'd still recommend to those who have absoultely nothing to do and just want to be in a room with air conditioning. Also, one question: Why not just get William Friedkin to do it? He's still directing and he did a damn good job with the first one, so was he even approached? Just wondering... Expand
  5. KaceyG.
    Mar 29, 2005
    4
    A little better than the first Exorcist, but that isnt saying much.
  6. JoeA.
    Nov 13, 2004
    6
    I went into this expecting very, very little. It was a little hokey at times, but it wasn't all that bad.
  7. MichaelM.
    Oct 21, 2004
    4
    Those seeking cheap thrills and blood will love this film. Those seeking an actual movie won't. This film is a little embarassing to the Exoricst series. Wait a minute... all the Exorcist movies were an embarrasment to the series except the original. The point is The Exorcist was a film that never should have had sequels. The only thing rewarding in this, the latest Exorcist Those seeking cheap thrills and blood will love this film. Those seeking an actual movie won't. This film is a little embarassing to the Exoricst series. Wait a minute... all the Exorcist movies were an embarrasment to the series except the original. The point is The Exorcist was a film that never should have had sequels. The only thing rewarding in this, the latest Exorcist installment, is an excellent performance by actor Stellan Skarsgaard. You'll find yourself wondering through the movie, "Why is he in this?! He's too good for this!". On this one, I think it's safe to wait till it debuts on HBO. Expand
  8. MikeW.
    Mar 19, 2005
    4
    Wow! Renny Harlin really missed his mark with this, while the story for the most part is okay. But ultimatley what kills this movie is the directing. Yet I continue to ponder why Renny Harlin got the job (his directing credits include: Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger). His style shows, the movies relies to much on "oogity-boogity" style scares, as opposed to real psycological scares. And what Wow! Renny Harlin really missed his mark with this, while the story for the most part is okay. But ultimatley what kills this movie is the directing. Yet I continue to ponder why Renny Harlin got the job (his directing credits include: Die Hard 2 and Cliffhanger). His style shows, the movies relies to much on "oogity-boogity" style scares, as opposed to real psycological scares. And what strikes me as funny is the original cut of the film (by another director and cast) was deemed too psychological and didn't have enough quick scares. Translation: dumb it down. And they sure got their wish. Expand
  9. AlbertoR.
    Mar 26, 2005
    6
    It was not that bad, i think the critics are being quick to label it horrible, it was not the best, but not the worst. A good tv movie to watch.
Metascore
30

Generally unfavorable reviews - based on 22 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 0 out of 22
  2. Negative: 11 out of 22
  1. Reviewed by: Joe Leydon
    40
    Earns points simply for not being bad enough to leave a stain on the screen. Unfortunately, this annoyingly disjointed shocker stumbles badly after promising early scenes, and quickly devolves into a chaotic blur of underdeveloped characters, illogical transitions and standard-issue scary-movie tropes.
  2. 20
    Pokey, blood-spattered, cheap-scare-larded prequel.
  3. The movie goes too far on too little motivation - and the middle section, with its maggoty villains, roiling skies and native revolts, seems almost barmy. Yet Exorcist: Beginning does score a small victory. It's not as bad as you'd think.