Three directors, two distinctly different versions of the same film, multiple actors in the same roles, at least six writers (most unaccredited), the story behind “Exorcist: The Beginning” is almost more interesting the movie itself. And while the picture being released today isn’t entirely without merit, I just can’t bring myself to talk about it without at least partially going into the intriguing and still evolving back-story.

But first the film. Under the stated direction of “Deep Blue Sea” director Renny Harlin, this prequel to William Friedkin’s original terror classic sets the stage in Africa circa 1949 and finds Lancaster Merrin (Stellan Skarsgård) alcoholic and stewing in his own missing faith. Years earlier a brutal encounter with the Nazi’s led the former Father to reconsider his position on God and the Catholic Church, turning to a life of archaeology and science instead of one based on scripture.

After an enigmatic benefactor hires him to oversee a dig in a small African village, Merrin finds his lack of faith put to the test when brutal and mysterious events start tearing the occupants literally to pieces. Joining forces with a beautiful doctor (Izabella Scorupco) and a young priest sent by the Vatican (James D’Arcy), Merrin must find the strength to cast out a demon more frightening and blatantly evil than even the loathsome Nazis which haunt his past. But without faith, can the haggard former Father do the deed before the Devil claims his soul along with the rest of the village’s?

With that synapses, it’s probably pretty clear I have no wish to waste my time on the movie itself. Director Renny Harlin did himself no favors taking over this trash-fest. With one film sitting in limbo (the long-delayed thriller “Mindhunters”) and his last picture arguably the worst racing flick ever made (the Stallone-penned “Driven”), being the person with their name on the front of a disaster seems to me not the way to go. But then, it could have been worse.

Take what happened to “Auto Focus” director and “Taxi Driver” scribe Paul Schrader. After assuming the directing reigns when John Frankenheimer tragically died, Schrader endured constant studio mandated re-writes and the departure of star Liam Neeson. Plugging onward, he convinced the acclaimed Skarsgård to step in and proceeded to take The Alienist author Caleb Carr’s story and craft an allegory to faith, not a grotesque blood-splattered horror show.

Warner Bros. was (supposedly) horrified by this turn of events and brought in Harlin to re-shoot a scene or two to up the shock quotient. When Schrader unsurprisingly balked at keeping his name on a picture full of sequences he didn’t approve of, the studio decided to throw out his $30 million cut completely and instead hand Harlin $50 million to redo everything (nearly) from scratch.

To make things even more confusing? Morgan Creek, the production company behind this whole debacle, announced just before this prequel’s release they were going to issue both Schrader’s and Harlin’s films on DVD, allowing the former to complete his version (with his cast and crew) even though it won’t see a theatrical distribution. While this last bit is welcome – especially when considering how disgusting Harlin’s version really is – it still calls into question why the studio went with a re-shoot anyhow. Only in Hollywood does something this strange, this absurd happen, and the truly sad fact is it happens more regularly then we probably know.

In the end, all we can do is measure the feature given to us, and in this case that is Harlin’s version. But in this analysis, even it is hard to judge, for how many of the themes and concepts depicted within are the director’s? Which thoughts were Schrader’s, which scenes come from his version, and how much did Harlin really go back and film? It is as if this film exists in two different vacuums; one an unsettling examination of faith and the other a blood and maggot soaked shock-fest more concerned with hitting the jugular than teasing the mind.

Lost in all of this is a downright brilliant performance by Skarsgård. The actor is so good, so magical as the young Father Merrin I couldn’t help but feel sorry for him. This is a bold, blistering portrait of a man at the end of his tether. Not since “Insomnia” – the 1997 Norwegian original – has the actor been asked to plumb so deep into conflicting human emotions, and he’s more than ready for the task. There is a moment where Merrin comes to the realization that evil, true evil, does exist separate from the hearts of men; that God and the Devil really are waging a war for the souls of mankind; and it is in that moment the Father must find a faith he discarded whilst in misery. It is a powerful moment, a transcending scene, and hints at the type of movie I can only assume Schrader – not Harlin – was going to go for.

But I can only speculate, and only by watching the two features side by side will we really know the answer. If that is the case and Schrader’s film even hints at the brilliance of emotion and subtlety Skarsgård nails during this scene then it will be our loss that Harlin’s crass piece of manipulative rubbish is what found release.

Art and commerce can exist in commercial filmmaking; “Collateral,” “Harry Potter 3,” “Spider-Man 2” and “The Bourne Supremacy” prove it; but sometimes a studio has to choose between the two. Count this round to the Devil, for commerce – not art – won this round, Warner Bros. and Morgan Creek bowing to the almighty opening weekend dollars instead of daring to bring us something daring and different in a summer practically devoid of either.