Filipe Neto
This film is the personal Paul Schrader's version of the prequel "The Exorcist: The Beginning", that he had envisioned before being removed from the direction of this film. So, it was a film shot by vanity. In any case, there is no doubt that this director is much superior, in quality and competence, than the man who found him to replace him in "Beginning", and this is reflected in the comparison between both films. Which of the directors copied the other is that I don't know because they made two movies that are practically Siamese twins surgically separated. This film also tells of the first confrontation between the devil Pazuzu and Father Merrin, is also a prequel to "The Exorcist", it also includes a Byzantine chapel buried in Africa (even bad ideas were maintained by both, since the Byzantines have never been in Kenya and neither does the chapel seem Byzantine) and also includes Stellan Skarsgård in the lead role. However, this film is superior in the way the plot is developed and closed, and in the way the horror is presented: drier, less fanciful and visual, with more containment and care in the special effects and a greater attention to the suspense, so necessary in horror. The film also attempts to weave several theological and philosophical ideas opposing the Catholic faith, the native beliefs, the skepticism of science and the occult and supernatural forces, in a broth of ideas that ends up not having a clear orientation nor carrying an evident idea or message. It's generally better than "Beginning", but it's still a long way from being a really good movie.
olly-pop
If you look this film up, you can read a wealth of information about how terrible the initial reviews were for it. It was re-released under 'Exorcist: The Beginning' which was essentially just a different edit and a desperate attempt to salvage the whole project. If you're a fan of the original 'The Exorcist' don't feel drawn towards this film as the two are unrelated. In fact, William Peter Blatty, the author/screenwriter of it, said that watching Exorcist: The Beginning was his "most humiliating professional experience." I love horror films and am totally open to anything low budget or a little odd. This is both with dire acting, scripting and special effects. I'm surprised it managed to reach the vote it did on IMDb and can only presume there are some very vocal die-hard fans out there. The film is poor in almost every way imaginable and my sincere advice, avoid like the plague!
amesmonde
Father Merrin assists a team of archaeologists who unearth a church. At first, Merrin resists the idea that supernatural forces are in play but an encounter with a demon inside a boy may change his mind.Dominion is the Prequel to the Exorcist (1973), the story is engaging, however like Harlin's Exorcist: The Beginning it's doesn't capture the tone of the Exorcist and feels more like a TV movie.The story of Dominion is very interesting, probably more so that the above mentioned Harlin's version but isn't as technically pleasing. It just can't getaway from that television look, the script is clunky, the sets are not dressed very well and the lighting is poor. The acting is more theatrical and the lack subtle cuts make it feel a far smaller film.Opening scene of the film is certainly very effective as Merrin faces the Nazi's. Nevertheless, it does have other faults especially the CGI effects. However, Ralph Brown as Sergeant Major is very good (and his screen time is sadly limited in Harlin's version).It works more as psychological horror but there are too many distractions to engross you, again like 'The Beginning' what makes this film interesting is the fact there are two films that utilise much of the same story, sets and actors. Watch only as an exercise.
FlashCallahan
At an archaeological dig in Africa, Father Lankester Merrin has his first encounter with the devil incarnate. Merrin has focused on archaeology, rather than spiritual matters and is intrigued when a church buried beneath the sand is excavated. Inside, he finds many signs of devil worship. To a great extent, he has lost his faith and is particularly haunted by events during the Nazi occupation and the impact of his decisions had on his parishioners. When the devil occupies the body of a young patient in the village hospital, Merrin risks his life to save him....So this is the other version, the one i was actually excited about more than Harlins predictable, cheesy, horror that made it to the big screen? Paul Schrader has an amazing talent, but none of it is shown in this lame duck.I don't really care about the connotations about westerns or the fact that this has some very good performances from the leads, the fact of the matter is that the story is very poor, and it's just boring to the point of wanting to turn it off.Warners should have left the Exorcist franchise well alone after the first, but they had to keep getting that little bit of money from it by re-releasing the same movie or making other versions.the one version of this was for the young horror/gore obsessed teen, who is used to movies like Haloween Resurrection and want to just forget about everything for ninety minutes.This version is supposed to be for real lovers of film, and it's just offencive stuff. probably the first subliminal major film release for two different versions of a film for two different classes of people.Give me Harlins version any day, at least i can laugh at how bad that is.
AD
