User reviews

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.

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

I found it fascinating at first, but it then dwindles to a boring talkie with a bit of action now and then. There were no real scares and it wasn't really frightening or disturbing, as we've come to expect from Exorcist movies. The CGI effects were very stocky, especially the animals. The hyenas were so stocky it was like watching a video game. As the film progressed, I related less and less to it, and later, found it very boring.

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.

I consider myself a huge fan of the original Exorcist. I even liked certain elements of the lackluster sequels. When you compare this version to Harlin's version, it is obviously clear that Harlin's is a much stronger film. I rented this movie with high hopes. I enjoyed Harlin's version and thought it was the coolest thing in the world that the studio actually released the alternate original version of the film. How often does that happen? Sounds cool but its not...

When you think of the Exorcist, you think of one of the best in the genre. You think of something unnerving and scary. You also look for some of the visual and psychological horror that was so well executed from the first movie. Dominion has none of these elements. It is neither scary nor unnerving. The script is horrible and with a few exceptions the acting is just laughable at times. The pace of the film drags on to no end and the conclusion is no more involving than playing tic-tac-toe.

If you are debating which version to watch of the recent prequel story, go with Harlin's. While it is far from perfect, it at least holds some of the essential elements reminiscent of the classic Exorcist.

Well, after seeing "Beginning" I thought why the hell they burned Schraders Version and did that poor one. But now, after seeing "Dominion" I deeply understand this decision. Even they got it not much better.

Sorry, but this movie is really crap. Some good moments, but a really boring story-telling and some major plot-holes are killing this movie.

I thing the Exorcist-story has a lot and in a prequel on this you can built on a lot and give references the audience will like to see. But there is so much little of it in the movie. The effects are really bad - not even TV-standard.

This movie was childish in its writing and laughable in its visual effects. Scenes where Father Merrin is tossing in his bed and his glimpses of a gimpy native are signs of bad acting and poor imagination. Nothing seems to fit. The story jumps from scene to scene. The elementary writing leaves no fact to the imagination and leaves no room for suspense. The lady doctor at one point states that she thinks the town is going to "explode soon" from all the crazy happenings. There was, in fact, nothing in the movie to make that line relevant. From the terrible job the movie had done, I would have never known that there were any tensions in the village. If you are into cheesy movies go ahead and rent this, but if you want to see this done right check out Exorcist:The Beginning

Much has been made of the peculiarly Kafka-esquire journey of 'Dominion': originally in the hands of the late John Frankenheimer, the 'Exorcist' prequel project was turned over to Paul Schrader, director/screenwriter best known for dark, gritty, existential dramas such as 'Taxi Driver,' 'Hardcore,' and 'Auto-Focus.' Schrader delivered a film allegedly close in spirit to the original, but the suits were unsatisfied, feeling that the film they'd been given lacked the necessary frights to please the current audience for horror films. As has been amply explained, the original 'Exorcist' was itself much less a horror film than a psychological drama, spare of excessive fun-house shock value, but the audience has changed--younger, dumber, and trained to expect cheap thrills--and the decision was handed down to re-tool the film to add more special effects and gore. Schrader refused, was fired and replaced by Renny Harlin, who re-shot the film almost entirely with a significantly revised story, several new actors and characters, and a decidedly less cerebral approach. But Schrader's film was already in the can, and horror purists and Exorcist junkies were left to wonder what might have been--if, for once, there might be a sequel/prequel that made genuine efforts to add to a story's mythic tradition rather than merely to exploit its notoriety to sell tickets and popcorn.

At last, we are able to weigh in on 'Exorcist prequel: take 1,' and while it certainly doesn't capture the original's aura of terror and dread, 'Dominion' reminds us that the most frightening terrors are in the subconscious and the imagination, and offers a more patient and believable glimpse into how Father Merrin first encountered the demon that would later find its way into a particular corner townhouse in Georgetown.

Schrader's direction--aided by the camera of legendary cinematographer Vittorio Storraro--is patient but not without scope. They frame the African hill country beautifully, and while things at times seem a bit too clean and tidy, I didn't consider the film 'slow.' Skarsgard's Merrin is essentially the same character as in 'Beginning,' and while he isn't inadequate, his performance may be a bit too restrained. As in the Renny Harlin cut, we are told that Merrin has left the priesthood out of guilt and anger at God over a particularly horrific confrontation with man's inhumanity to man in Nazi-occupied Holland near the end of WW II. More is made of this back-story in 'Dominion,' but Merrin's crisis of faith seems less palpable and torturous than that of Damien Karras in 'The Exorcist,' so that his re-conversion to belief doesn't register the expected intensity. Gabriel Mann appears as Father Francis (due to schedule conflicts with the re-shoot, he was replaced by James D'Arcy in 'The Beginning'), and his tender, almost androgynous demeanor makes him an endearing and appealing character. Clara Bellar appears as Rachel, a character entirely written out of 'The Beginning' and replaced with a sexier version of the same, played by Bond girl Isabella Scurupco. Bellar is more believable as a nurse in East Africa, and her back-story creates a connection with Merrin, but she still seems a bit out of place (though certainly far more appropriate to the story than her counterpart in 'The Beginning'). Julian Wadham reprises his role as a tormented British Major, to strong and believable effect. The climactic confrontation with Pazuzu is entirely different in this film, and far more believable (and chilling).

Nevertheless, there are some inconsistencies, and the framing of the exorcism scene lacks the intensity of the first film's, largely because the audience is never adequately introduced to the victim. A big part of what made 'The Exorcist' terrifying is that the audience is given the opportunity to watch the full transformation of a sweet, affectionate child into a bile-spitting, profane shell for a malevolent spirit. 'Dominion's victim is never fully introduced, and thus, the audience has less of an investment in his exorcism.

In the end, however, this film far exceeds the quality of the amusement-park silliness of 'The Beginning,' and while it's not likely to break the bank, it is certainly the most respectable of the films based on Blatty and Friedkin's original.

Absolutely one of the worst movies I've ever seen! "The Beginning" was not the greatest either but better than this one. This is not a good way to lead up to the original movie. It's just simply awful! The CGI hyenas were so fake looking in both movies! Why not use real animals? I enjoyed the old Sinbad movies better than this. I was royally disappointed! The only good thing I can say about this waste of film is the cinematography and clothes which really captured that era well. I understand why this movie was redone as "The Beginning". It's just that bad, in my opinion. where does the money come from to waste like this? Give me a multi-million dollar budget and I'll show you how it should be done!

If you go into this film thinking you are going to see twirling heads and pea-soup you are going to be disappointed. If you go into this film with an open mind you will be pleasantly surprised by the depth, sophistication, spiritual drama, and sheer craft involved. There is meat to this picture. I think the artists involved rightly avoided trying to best or even mimic the original and instead focused on dread-- a creeping sort of existential dread-- instead of cheap, quick scares. You don't jump in your seat with fear, but you walk out of the theater feeling unnerved and it stays with you. Unlike most of the American popcorn horror flicks being made today, this film lingers in your head long after.

this is the worst pizza of cheese ever... it's exactly the same as the exorcist:the beginning but even lamer... an EXACT COPY of that film, but with some of the cool scenes with lamer effects... its so bad you'll get confused and think why in the smell would anyone make an exact same movie but with worse actors and less creepy effects? don't they get sued for this? did they make any money of it at all? or is this movie only made to corkscrew with our heads and urinate us off? i really don't get this one... If you're planing to see this movie, then don't. Rent the beginning instead.. much better even though its not worth comparing it with the other exorcist movies 1, 2 and 3.

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.

I have to wonder why such a talented writer as Paul Schrader, who has successfully scrutinized the psychologies of humans in his previous films and scripts, embarked on such a terrible journey with this story. To make a film takes up many years of one's life, so why waste it on such drivel? The money? Because you need a career kick start? Laziness?

This film is mainly set in East Africa and follows the 'weird' events surrounding an archaeological dig. If you took White Mischief or even Hercule Poirot, as made for ITV, and added spooky content, with dire melodramatic music and paper thin characterization, then this would be Dominion. It is Death On The Nile with a god slant.

Schrader seems lost in a story that cannot make up it's mind as to what to say. On one level, it is taking a very superficial look at colonialism in Africa and the effects of the missionaries on the indigenous population, then peppers it with a love story between the priest (Skarsgard) and a girl (Bellar) supposedly bound by the horrors of WW2, and then there is the atrocious portrayal of Africans as ignorant superstitious bush dwellers with their mouth piece being the English speaking Jomo (Aduramo) who acts as the 'black lackey' who can fill them in on what the "fuzzie wuzzies" are saying. Jesus H Christ! All set to TV drama music! It is the sort of film my great grandfather would have enjoyed, but i bet even he would have found it rather anodyne.

The opening scene set ,supposedly, in Holland with a cliché German SS execution dilemma where Father Merrin has to choose as to who will die is the motor for the film;s horror. Does God exist? if so then he would not be so cruel... But his guilt is so ham fistedly explored, that there is no tension or even desire to revisit that dilemma.

I would not even say that the film is nicely shot. Well exposed maybe, but there is no motivation behind the camera as to where it is placed, other than to push the plot forward mindlessly.

Friedkin's camera was inquisitive, curious and scared. It knew what it was looking for, as did the script. As a film maker, one has the choice to choose the moments in time, and the place with which to view events, in order to involve an audience into one's own curiosity to a story. A great film tries to understand the fragility of being human.

And we don't need bad CGI hyenas (or monkeys, Mr. Lucas - THX 1138 remastered) to put fear into our bones. The human fear is the fear of the unknown, the fear of our existence, and that is a very private and special fear that most filmmakers today are choosing to ignore. Travis Bickle could have told you that.

One day a real rain will come, and wash films like this away....

There's less to "think" about in this version. Less to see. Less to hear. Less to experience. Reviewers classifying this as a "thinking man's version" of the film, and how it had more substance are just taking sides with the directorial changes that brought us two versions of the same movie in 1 year. You want the safer version watch this one. You want the roller coaster (trigger warning) version watch Exorcist: The Beginning.

This is a truly risible movie. A cross somewhere between a Hammer Horror and a Carry On movie, Schrader has crafted a truly awful piece of cinema. My first thoughts after about three quarters of an hour were that it looked like a cheap made-for-TV movie, and the dreadful CGI effects merely compound this. The art direction is woeful, everything looks brand-spanking new, and the sets are so clichéd. Schrader's direction is clunky and uninspired, but worst of all is the acting from Skarsgard and Mann. Skarsgard chews the scenery for two hours whilst Mann seems to think he's in some Merchant Ivory epic.

Two hours of my life wasted. This film should not be thought of as anything to do with Friedkin's masterpiece. It is a travesty that quite rightly the studio attempted to shelve. If people think this is better than Exorcist: The Beginning I'm just glad I haven't seen it.

After a massacre by the Gestapo Nazi during WWII , in postwar (1947) a young Father Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard) goes East Africa . Merrin is a parish priest from Holland with archaeological bent , he realized six archaeological digs since the war . He's listed still as a displaced person . There finds a simple Jesuit , father Francis (Gabriel Mann) who studied his works at the Maryknoll center . Francis is quite an admirer of Merrin , he about to begin missionary work in the Turkana district , he thinks may be they could help each other . It's found a dig in right west of Lake Rudolph in the Turkana district a church is early Christian which makes for quite a mystery given its location . A Cardinal is concerned that the exploration of this significance is conducted by a priest which is temporary in sabbatical and with no faith . Architecture church seems to date to the fifth century when the Byzantine empire had adopted Christianity by then but they never got this far south but the stones look new but they should be badly weathered by the wind and sun . Church has representations about battles on the walls and ceiling of angels (Saint Michael) and demons (Satan) . In the location Merrin encounters a Jewish Polish (Clara Bellar) and a British detachment ruled by a nutty Major (Waham) and a sergeant (Ralph Brown) . A little boy is possessed by harmful spirit and father Perrin confronts against the demon Pazuzu and he makes exorcism to save a young boy from dark forces......

This is a terrifying and startling story about possession with usual poltergeist phenomenon caused by the supernatural demon . Nice acting by Stellan Skarsgård , he is playing a younger version of Max Von Sydow's character from The exorcist (1973). Skarsgård is nearly a decade older than Von Sydow was during the filming of the original movie . Special effects , colorful cinematography (by Vittorio Storaro) , creepy music (Trevor Ravin , Angelo Badalamenti) and intelligence by director Paul Schrader , all combined to make it a good film . The original Exorcist(Friedkin) film spread a wave of demonic possessions movies that continues unbated today such as ¨The changeling¨, ¨Amytiville¨,¨Darkness¨ ; besides the sequels as ¨Exorcist II¨ (by John Boorman) , ¨Exorcist III¨ (by William Peter Blatty) and prequels ¨The beginning¨ and ¨Dominion¨ . This rare film not for squeamish and is better than ¨Beginning¨ , being shot at the same time, remaining Paul Schrader's version for the market video . Paul Schrader was originally hired as director of The Exorcist : The beginning (2004) , but Morgan Creek ultimately rejected his "psychological thriller" approach, saying it was "commercially unmarketable" . The decision was made to extensively rewrite and re-shoot the script, re-cast several roles , add new roles and give the director's chair to Renny Harlin . Schrader's version was originally supposed to be released direct to video, as a bonus feature on the DVD release of Harlin's version . Although is a prequel of prior movie , it's one the highest earning horror picture of the last years .

It's interesting that WB finally released this title - although a limited release - after shelving it then shelling out the money to have another director (an arguably lesser director) do it all over again. What did they thing Renny Harlin would give them that Paul Schrader hadn't? And if WB wanted a summer kid-flick-hit, what would make anyone with the power to sign a cheque think Harlin could do it? This Paul Schrader version is wonderful. It's intelligent, and probably the only follow up in The Exorcist franchise that succeeds on more than a monetary level. I'm not a Harlin fan - he directs without vision. But I think from a purely academic stand point, it will be interesting to pair up both versions - Paul Schrader's and Renny Harlin's - of this movie on DVD and see the differences of where an insightful director will go and how a limited director doesn't even how to get there.

I went into watching this film with an open mind and low expectations. Studios never wanted this to see the light of day? It can't be that bad right?

Well, I have seen this and I cannot believe how bad this film is.

note: spoilers are probably in here.. but trust me - you don't want to see this film anyhow.. But for those who care, be warned..

================================================

1) it is poorly written. NOTHING essentially happens in this film! it is essential Mr. Merrin walking around for two hours. 2) it is confused. On one hand it wants to be artsy, but then it gives us some of the most cheap gore scenes I have ever seen! (more on this later). It wants to condemn Christianity on one hand, and yet be a film so full of faith that it wants to be cataloged in Seminary for priests to watch. It wants to be a horror film but provides no scares 3)Satan - the devil himself - is nothing but a pretty young boy whose total powers are to a) turn his face white, b) throw people against a wall, c) shoot bugs out of his mouth. Honest - that is it!! Worse, when he talks he is the only one who makes any sense in this film! And he is dispatched quietly by waving a cross in front of him. That's it! That is the BIG confrontation! 4) some of the WORST special effects I have EVER scene. I can't believe people would complain about the cgi hyenas in Harlin's version if they would have seen the crap in this film. the cows were hilarious!! I have seen graphics on my child's game boy better than this. 5)what was with the cheap gore shots? nothing happens for ONE HOUR and all of a sudden you see a close up an arm being opened up. Or a shot of that hilarious cow tearing an animal apart. Did they think this was supposed to be scary? yeesh.

there was not one moment where I was a) interested, b) cared about the characters, c) scared, d)spooked out.

At the 30 minute mark I was looking at my watch. At the one hour mark I wanted my money back. At 1.5 hours I was clenching my teeth and hands holding back my desire to eject the movie and/or throw something at my TV. At the 2 hour mark I was so incensed I wanted to fire the director and hire someone else to rewrite and re shoot this travesty and try to salvage SOMETHING out of this mess!

oh wait - that's exactly what the studio did!

Renny Harlin is a genius. You hear me - a GENIUS for being able to make a decent film out of this monstrosity.

I used to think that producers and studio executives really shouldn't get involved with the creative process of film making. But after watching this and knowing they only released this film under pressure from ignorant people (like myself) who couldn't believe it could be this bad, I have renewed respect for them.

This film was never released. It escaped.

Well worth missing...

How ANYBODY can give anything more than a 1 for this film is beyond my comprehension.. But to each their own.

Still, this needs to be in the bottom 250...

I like Stellan Skarsgård and as usual he gives a solid performance here. The rest of the cast are fine and the films movies along nicely. The first half sets everything up, and the scenes where they are excavating a Byzantine church are very creepy. But it seems to be the second half of the film that starts to..not fall apart exactly, but it becomes rather unevenly paced. Also the shoddy special effects don't help. Billy Crawford who plays Cheche, a young disabled outcast, is fine in the role, but after a while it becomes almost comical. While watching it, I kept thinking that the original Exorcist was so much better. It just lacked the scare factor that the original still to this day has.

I am wondering if the movie had been a little tighter and the effects a tad better, would I have enjoyed it more? Maybe. It's not a bad film, it is just that the first Exorcist and the third one were both just so much better. Still, it's not bad, it just isn't as creepy as it could have been.

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.