Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist

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 remember the first time I watched The Exorcist (1973) when I was a kid, it scared the hell out of me. By now I rewatched that movie alot of times and it's still a classic in the horror/possession genre. To know what happened before is a good idea for a movie. The first prequel they made, Exorcist The Beginning (2004) wasn't great at all, rather mediocre, and so when I read this version was better I got a bit excited. But the truth is that this movie isn't much better. The first half of the movie is interesting to watch, but as soon as the horror part should begin you immediately spot the awful special effects and horrific CGI's. When you compare a movie from 1973, with decent special effects, with a movie from 2005, or 32 years of advanced technology, then you can only conclude that this isn't good at all. The prequel for one of the best demonic possession movies deserves something better than this.

I was among the lucky ones to see this film in Brussels too. Are you going to like this film or not ? Well it all depends on what you expect. As a horror film fan, for me there is no doubt : no one will ever make a better Exorcist film as William Friedkin's original. They can make 100 more exorcists, the 1st will remain the reference, it was innovating in many ways. Exorcist 2 took its best horror sequences from the first one. Number 3 was a cop movie. Now we have numbers 4 and 5 with the same story and even the same actors sometimes. So where is the difference ? I saw them both but I did not expect to see a better movie than the first. It is probably why I liked them both. So if you prefer horror, well see Harlin's one, it is a decent successor. And if you like Paul Shrader' s movies, I don't think you will be disappointed with his version, witch is softer but deeper. But please, as he said to the public before the film : forget everything you have seen about the exorcist movies before and watch the film with a open mind.

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...

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