‘Beginning’ isn’t the original, but worth seeing

Evan Marmol

“The Exorcist the Beginning” is the predecessor to the seminal film

“The Exorcist” that will forever reside in the pantheon of religious

based horror films. This prequel is far more forgettable, and will

not receive the accolades in the annals of film history of its

illustrious predecessor. The preceding notwithstanding, this flick is

not without its merits.

This film chronicles the life of Father Lankester Marrin, a fallen

priest estranged because of traumatic circumstances during WWII. The

Vatican commissions the now archeologist to unearth a mystery.

The teaser trailers do not give much away, and I do not intend on

revealing much more. The somewhat lagging script contains a dubious

tryst for Marrin, an indignant tribe and a convoluted Vatican twist

that Marrin unravels; culminating in the hapless father discovering

that a Pandora’s Box has been opened. If this plot sounds a bit

thick, it is, but it comes together moderately well. In the end, this

is a classic tale between good and evil.

I will say that I did enjoy the movie, but we live in a society

that is almost completely desensitized to violence, gore and, in this

case, perdition. This film would have killed in the 1970s; in fact it

probably would have needed editing to be allowed for public

screening. Nowadays, it is a platitude to display a profusion of gore

to an unimpressed audience. In its defense, some scenes could make

even the most seasoned horror flick vet jump in their seats, but

overall the frights do not amount to anything extraordinary.

The saving grace for “The Beginning” is that it thoroughly

explains the motives of Marrin and strengthens the classic by filling

the gaping holes in his life. The trials and tribulations of Marrin

are genuinely authentic and intriguing. It is a must see for “The

Exorcist” fans.

‘Collateral’ is bad sign of future of film

Michael Mann’s “Collateral” epitomizes linear minimalism in a film

with boundless potential, but amounts to nothing more than a

conceptual and logical nightmare.

This popcorn flick is simply about an assassin that commissions a

cab driver to take him on his escapades, with many unnecessary and

convoluted twists.

The aspects of minimalism could be terrifying if the narrative did

not amount to long winded drivel. From the cinematography to the

believably ordinary reality, it could have been riveting. Many

problems, though, surface as the movie becomes less and less

compelling.

The first inconsistency is why, oh why, would a super efficient

assassin, Victor (Tom Cruise) hire a cab driver? The hapless cab

driver, Max (Jamie Fox), even mentions this incongruity as if to

taunt the audience. Victor, we are led to believe, operates under the

vale of anonymity and yet he discloses his well-orchestrated plan to

a random stranger. As their relationship evolves, the fatuous

dialogue detracts from an already wafer-thin plot.

If there is a plot, it elusively deviates regularly with lethargic

character development. The wanton killing should be obvious from the

title, but the abject denial of a complete reason for it is just

absurd.

As the film winds down, nothing can be said of this undisciplined

failure. The entire film plays out like a video game. This film, more

than any, is emblematic of how our culture is less and less

interested in the details and more interested is just sitting down

complacently. “Collateral” is the future of Hollywood drivel, and I

regret patronizing it.

* EVAN MARMOL is Laguna Beach resident. He graduated from UC

Irvine with a degree in psychology and social behavior. He can be

reached at Evan_Marmol@hotmail.com.