No, it is not the original film, but it was not suppose to be a “pick up where we left off” type of sequel. It has some really witty and intelligently written dialogue. Some beautifully shot scenes and sequences. The sequence of heaven is odd, but has a satirical feel to it that makes it somehow work. This film is really allowing some of Blatty's satirical work from before “The Exorcist” come through in all the right places. Because this film did not rely on jolts every 5 or 10 minutes, it has set the audience up to a safe comfort zone for one really AWESOME jolt that I remember really grabbing people back when it was in theaters. Even how it was shot was extremely clever!

This is not a perfect film, but it is a great one in its own way. It came out during that early 90's low point for horror(Box office) and was one of the few that were really done with imagination and intelligence. Most were pretty typical sequels, where this was unique and interesting.

i'll agree that heretic was really bad. by the fifth time someone asked father karras 'why'd you quit being a priest?' i was hoping he'd never answer.. but people kept asking, and he got angrier every time, there was no avoiding that he was eventually going to reveal why he's not a priest at some dumb pivotal moment. i refused to be there when it happened so i changed the channel and never looked back. did they make more than one exorcist prequel? hope i'm talking about the right movie here

I remember being real excited about this movie four years ago.AMC Channel shows it constantly these days and I can’t sit through 2 minutes of this crap.None of the sequels come close to being a masterpiece, but this drivel should be fed to those CGI sharks that Renny Harlin used in his 1999 disaster flick called, “Deep Blue Sea”.”Exorcist:The Beginning” is the worst film in the entire “Exorcist” canon.

2.” The Exorcist III:Legion”
I placed this as the second worst because it showcased William Peter Blatty messing up his own leftover characters from “The Exorcist”.The relationship between Father Karras and William Kinderman is my biggest issue.All of a sudden Kinderman calls Karras his “Best friend”.CGI exorcism sequences which involve snakes?Meandering dialogue and Brad Dourif as the spirit of a dead serial killer do not make for good psychological horror.

3. Exorcist II:The Heretic”
Linda Blair gets to act with a really drunk Richard Burton.Where was Elizabeth Taylor, George Segal, and Sandy Dennis to round out the cast of drunks?(See “Who’s Afraid Of The Virginia Woolf” and you get to squirm in your seat more so than you would with the horror climax crucifix scene from “The Exorcist”.Why was Sharon Spencer back when she parted company with the MacNeils at the end of that same movie?Furthermore, why was she acting so strangely throughout this whole movie?Were we meant to be frightened by the voice of Pazuzu in this cinematic nightmare?Or the legions of wet fan blown leaves meant to be hordes of locusts?Were we supposed to be frightened of a peanut headed possessed body double stand in for Miss Blair?

4. Dominion:Prequel To The Exorcist”
After two years, I dusted off this DVD and figured I would watch it back to back with “The Exorcist”…..well, it is much better than the Renny Harlin fiasco, but it is over acted in places.The worst part are the Kenyan natives ad-libbing “native” dialogue (particularly the annoying Sebituana).I’m willing to bet that President Barack Hussein Obama probably knows better Kenyan linguistics than these guys…or George W Bush for that matter!Aside from this, it is not a completed film and we all know the legendary story behind that reason.Paul Schrader could have had a brilliant film had he been given half a chance by the Morgan Creek company

Ultimately, for myself, I choose to stick with the original….1973 film of William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist” as the one film that never should have had sequels/prequels to begin with.