Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist

This 2005 "Exorcist" is so similar to the 2004 one, the fourth part, that I thought at times that I was mistakenly watching the same movie again. The only difference is that this fifth part is duller. Very dull.

This horror film contains all the no-nos of the genre. It's far too long with its 110 minutes. The look of the movie is utterly bland, and there is no atmosphere to speak of. Almost nothing happens in the first half-hour, and very little much else in the entire movie. There is more focus on the dull non-horror sub-plot regarding a brewing war between the tribe and the military than on the religious stuff.

When "Exorcist II" came out it was hard to imagine that anyone would ever make a worse entry in this very uneven series (only 1 and 3 are good), but I have to say that this monotonous piece of crap achieves that feat. At least the second part has some camp value, whereas this fifth part is just DULL.

Have I already mentioned that it's dull? You have been warned...

Exorcist: The Beginning was an ineffective film that contains everything I hate about current genre films: impatient editing and storytelling, lines of dialogue that stop just when some characters are about to actually say something, bombardment of CGI visuals and some seriously unnecessary gore effects that are akin to the movie-makers hitting the audience over the head with a Warner Brothers iron anvil normally reserved for their cartoon characters. What a nice surprise it was to finally see DOMINION on it's (unfortunate) limited run. Here is a movie that doesn't assume the audience is too stupid to actually sit down and take a story in without excessive music video stimuli. Here is a movie who's build-up is effective and will have many working hard to shake the uneasy feeling that, indeed, evil IS everywhere. There were some story elements from "The Beginning" that made no sense whatsoever. In this film - all is presented clearly, thoughtfully and much more unsettling (but it really hits you when the film comes to its climax). There is a scene in "The Beginning" where some crazed hyenas savage a character to shreds. Their appearance was curious and not presented as necessarily crucial to the film other than for one scene. In this film, just one look from them and you know right away they add to the whole atmosphere of the film. They are an ever present danger not only to the surrounding location but the always present evil watching humanity just out of sight and ready to attack when one is most vulnerable and alone. Another sequence featuring Father Merrin and Nazi soldiers is given a very clever, diabolic twist and adds MUCH to the notion of how the Devil deceives and tricks. In the other film, it's a scene where you know only that "this is what torments Father Merrin" - and that's it. Which is how this movie plays against Renny Harlin's "The Beginning" - an easy sell to the masses (it STILL didn't work). "Dominion" is a crafted piece where one single shot holds more story information than a 30 second sequence rife with vulgar, over-the-top digital effects. See this version - especially if believe that The Exocist story is actually more effective today than it EVER was.

Many of you probably know the story behind this movie: the studio hired Paul Schrader to make a prequel of "The Exorcist" and once he finished it the executives decided that the audience wouldn't like it. So, the hired a mercenary and made him filmed the whole movie again and change the most of the cast. Obviusly the final product was nothing but rubbish and the takings weren't that good. Now, many of us wanted to see the Schrader version, and let me tell you that it's no big deal. It's actually darker and more dramatic than the one they released for the cinemas, but it's nothing to write home about. It's not even a horror movie, for it deals with the inner fight of Father Merrin and his doubts about the existence of God and stuff.

What's more remarkable about "Dominion" is the presence of Stellan Skarsgaard (what a voice!!) and the photography of Vicente Storaro (although some effects at the end of the film are not very classy). In short: it's a better film than the one the producers re-made, but still it's not what I expected from Schrader. It looks that he copes better with urban stories than with angels, demons, etc.

*My rate: 5/10

In all honesty, I have to say that between this work, and the Remy Harlin Exorcist prequel, the story is told, and told well. Unfortunately, you NEED to watch both versions in order to GET the whole story and see effects worth seeing.

I don't know which is worse, to make two versions of the same movie, and have them both fall short, or to have waited 30 plus years to get the story in the first place.

Either way, if you're an Exorcist fan, I highly recommend viewing both versions to get the whole picture.

It's neither worse, nor better than the Remy Harlin Version, and rates a 5.0/10 from...

the Fiend :.

I had wanted to see this film for ages, even before seeing the terrible Renny Harlin version. Renny Harlin!? What the hell were they thinking? I missed it on its limited cinema release, but eventually saw it on DVD, and as much as I want to say that I enjoyed it, I can't. I can honestly see now why they weren't happy with the final product, but to completely re-shoot it, and to hire a director like Renny Harlin, is just madness.

The main problem I had with the film was the complete lack of atmosphere, and that should be the main thing with an Exorcist film. There was no feeling of fear or any creepiness in the film at all. It was all very bland.

It's good to be able to compare the two films. Harlin's version is a Hollywood dumbed-down horror action film, while Schrader's film is a slower-paced, thinking person's version, but unfortunately lacking in any real horror moments.

I really was hoping I would have enjoyed the film, but I have to be totally honest and give my true opinion Overall I would rate the film 6 out of 10, maybe even 5 out of 10. The Harlin version would be less than that.