Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
162 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Better Graphics, But They Left Out Half The Plot!
FiendishDramaturgy21 March 2007
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 :.
20 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
First half okay, but then you get the awful special effects and it's all over.
deloudelouvain26 October 2019
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.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Disappointing.
rainking_es4 July 2006
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
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Fascinating at first, then utterly boring.
paulclaassen18 June 2018
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.
15 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not Amazing, but 100 Times Better than Exorcist: The Beginning
jefeparigi19 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I just saw this a couple of nights ago at a media screening in New York. There are no spoilers in this review.

Just to preface this, I am a HUGE fan of the Exorcist. It is the greatest horror movie ever made, and perhaps one of the greatest films ever made period. With no major expectations, I saw the Harlin version last year just hoping for a somewhat scary sequel movie. I cannot tell you how irritated I was by it. I was so annoyed that I actually wrote a letter of complaint to Morgan Creek Pictures demanding my money back. What bothered me the most is that Exorcist: The Beginning made no effort to keep the same aesthetics as the original. The 1973 classic had very little gore or special effects. It was more about strong directing, good sound editing, and building mood and atmosphere. Harlin's version, on the other hand, was more of an action movie along the lines of The Mummy or Van Helsing, only with more R rated thrills: loads of gore, loads of special effects, none of it the least bit scary.

Well, once I found out about the Paul Schrader version I became obsessed with wanting to see it. From what I heard it was more in the spirit of the original Exorcist and more of a "thinking man's film". Plus it was written by Caleb Carr, author of one of my favorite novels: The Alienist. I was even more excited when I found out they were releasing it in the theaters this year.

So onto my review...

I wasn't exactly "blown away" by Dominion, but it's 100 times better than "The Beginning". It at least maintains those aesthetics that I described above. It's not a straight up horror movie, there's probably only 2 or 3 real scares in the whole film, but those scares are far more terrifying than any of the cheap fun house type thrills that Harlin's version has to offer.

Although the big scares are minimal, there's loads of creepiness in the movie. It manages to make you feel uneasy the whole way through. I didn't have a hard time falling asleep that night, but I did wake up in the middle of the night kind of bothered thinking about some of the weird images that were burned in my brain.

From the beginning, what I liked immediately is that it was kind of grainy and looked like a 15 or 20 year old movie. There was something old fashioned about the style of film-making which made me feel like I truly was in Africa during the 1940s....much more so than the other slick Hollywood version. The cinematography is excellent. Much like a David Lynch film, you need to see it on the big screen because there's so much detail to enjoy that can be missed on a small television screen. My favorite scenes revolve around the archaeological expedition of an ancient temple buried in Africa. As they're exploring the catacombs under the temple, there's some bizarre faces carved into the rock. They don't jump out and say, "boo!" but they creep you out as your eyes discover them on their own terms.

I definitely took this version much more seriously. It's a very emotional film: many scenes managed to make me feel upset, bothered, unsettled, and sometimes even disturbed. Even simple scenes like people getting shot were so much more upsetting in their treatment. It also was successful in getting me to think about god, religion, and faith the same way that the first Exorcist did.

Of course Dominion does have it's flaws:

-Some of the acting could have been better and I can understand the need to do some recasting. The Nazi officer in the beginning wasn't the least bit intimidating. And Father Merrin's assistant Father Francis had sort of a Keanu Reeves quality about him. That's probably the biggest advantage that the first Exorcist has over this film. When you watch that movie, the actors are much more convincingly terrified. And that's what makes a great horror movie. Fear is a learned response. If the viewer is convinced that the actor is scared, then he/she gets scared, too. There's no substitute for good acting, not with all the special effects in the world.

-There's very little special effects in this movie, but the few scenes that do have CGI are really bad. There is no reason to use computer effects to portray animals such as jackals, cattle, scorpions, etc. Get the real thing or use puppetry. This movie did not need special effects.

-The ending climax scene, the confrontation between Father Merrin and the devil, could have used a little bit more intensity. I felt like he got through that scene much too easily, considering that in the first Exorcist, one priest died and the other was brought to near death during the exorcism. Stellan Skarsgard didn't even break a sweat! William Friedkin would have worked him to the ground. This scene kind of reminded me of a Star Trek episode.

If you are at all interested (and are still reading this), these are my personal letter grades to the Exorcist films I have seen:

Exorcist (1973) A+, Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) F, Dominion: A Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) B-

Although not perfect, I think 75% of Dominion was salvageable. There was no reason to scrap it and make an entirely different, much worse version. With some minor changes, Dominion could have been raised a whole letter grade into a very scary, very respectable, and probably very successful installment into the Exorcist franchise and at much less cost, too.
84 out of 107 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Paul Shrader's exorcist
ldemesmaeker22 March 2005
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.
55 out of 76 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Lower than expected.
burgthaler14 January 2006
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.
14 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Unequal to the Oiriginal, but Much Closer in Spirit Than 'Beginning'
eht5y29 October 2005
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.
51 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Laughably Bad
feeltheflood27 April 2006
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.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"I chose good. Evil happened."
Hey_Sweden19 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
One of two different interpretations (the other being Renny Harlins' "Exorcist: The Beginning") of the Father Merrin back story, "Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist" tells a decent but ultimately familiar story that just doesn't have the impact of the original 1973 classic. Merrin (Stellan Skarsgard, a worthy successor / predecessor to Max von Sydow) lost his faith after a horrible, untenable situation during WWII. A few years later, he is supervising an archaeological dig in Africa, as workers unearth an ancient church, and must confront pure Evil once again.

For a substantial portion of the run time, the capable director Paul Schrader and writers William Wisher and Caleb Carr actually parcel out cinematic varieties of horror intermittently. This is more a straight drama about real-life horrors, of mans' consistent inhumanity to man, and what it does to Merrins' psyche as he has to keep witnessing it. In the films' second half, it does become more formulaic as yes, another possession occurs, and Merrin must rediscover his faith to save the life & soul of an innocent child (Billy Crawford as Cheche).

The always wonderful Skarsgard is an excellent anchor for this tale, and he receives good support from actors such as Gabriel Mann (as Father Francis), Clara Bellar (as the doctor Rachel Lesno), Ralph Brown (as the sergeant-major), Andrew French (as Chuma), Julian Wadham (as Major Granville), Eddie Osei (as Emekwi), and Ilario Bisi-Pedro (as Sebituana). Crawford is appealing as the child, who before the events of the film was always treated like a pariah.

The film is exceptionally well shot by the great Vittorio Storaro, well designed, and reasonably atmospheric, even if it's never really scary (Crawford in demon makeup is nowhere near as memorable as Linda Blair). It is interesting for the way it portrays the tension between the soldiers in British East Africa and the locals, who regard Christianity as evil. Things come to a head and unfortunate casualties take place - and overwhelming guilt results. While Merrin goes to confront the demon Pazuzu who will later be his nemesis in "The Exorcist", the soldiers & locals prepare to battle each other.

It's been too long since this viewer last saw the Harlin movie, so he can't really compare the two versions of this tale. At least it was good that Morgan Creek did rescue this one from movie limbo, and viewers can compare & contrast two visions.

Those CGI hyenas and cows are pretty dire, though.

Seven out of 10.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The Ugly Twin of Exorcist
eman82003 December 2006
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
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
This movie is fantastic.
thedeadliners200221 March 2005
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.
102 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Not a Lack of Faith but of Guilt
LanceBrave22 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
You know the story by now: Morgan Creek wanted to make a prequel to "The Exorcist" and hired to Paul Schrader to do so. After delivering them his movie, the studio dismissed it for not being gory enough. Renny Harlin, esteemed filmmaker of "Cutthroat Island" and "A Nightmare on Elm Street 4," was brought in to completely reshoot the film. After Renny Harlin's excretal "Exorcist: The Beginning" was unleashed on the world, to critical savaging and public indifference, Morgan Creek figured they may as well release Paul Schrader's original cut. Given the unwieldy title, "Dominion: The Prequel to "The Exorcist,"" the film's art-house release made slightly less money and received only slightly better reviews.

The two films follow the same general outlines. Father Merrin, his faith shaken by atrocities seen during the war, goes to Africa as an archaeologist. A church, made in the wrong century and perfectly preserved inside, is dug up. The British army and the local tribe come close to trading blows. Aside from these elements, the two films play out in very different ways. In "Dominion," Merrin discovers a deformed, crippled child on the street. After the discovery of the church, the boy's condition begins to improve miraculously. This is the possessed child. The boy's condition plays out against the two armies coming to blows and Merrin's crisis of faith.

In "The Beginning," the British army and the African tribes go to war because of an ill-defined cloud of evil floating over the area. It was dumb. In "Dominion," the conflict between the two armies is an issue of religious difference and imperialism. The African tribesman associate Christianity with the British army. The head general murders a girl without reason. The film draws explicit parallels between this scene and the Nazi atrocities seen at the beginning of the film. In response, the tribesman murders the young boys interested in Christianity. In response, a convert actively wonders if this Christianity thing is worth it. There's no amorphous cloud of evil spreading its influence over the world. Instead, the events that happen are born out of men and their weaknesses.

Most fascinatingly, "Dominion" tackles with the cost of evil. In "The Beginning," Merrin's crisis of faith is the result of what happened in the war. That film didn't go any further as to why. In "Dominion," Merrin's sin is not a lack of faith but of guilt. He lives with what happened every day and it weights heavily on him. During the exorcism, the demon promises to take Merrin's guilt away from him. The film shows faith as a burden, as having to live with and deal with the things that happen to us. Evil is not a vague, grand idea. Instead, it happens because people do not care and walk away from their conflicts. This is a surprisingly profound idea to find in a horror movie, much less a horror movie prequel.

Unlike the music video style gore of "The Beginning," "Dominion's" effects are much more subtle. The film does not attempt to replicate the shock value of the original. There's no swearing, green vomit, scarred faces, or bodily contortion. The only visual call back to the original "Exorcist" is brief appearances from the Captain Howdy face. When possessed, the boy's condition actually improves. His limbs straighten, his broken bones heal, his body grows strong and vitalized. This is a clever visualization of the film's theme of guilt and imperfection as something that makes us stronger. The confrontation between Merrin and the demon is not a series of shocking special effects. Instead, it's a battle of wills.

That Morgan Creek would dismiss "Dominion" for being non-commercial and "not scary enough" is not exactly surprising. The film's biggest weakness is how slow paced it is. This is a character based movie. There's only small amounts of gore in short burst, such as a stillborn child or the torn apart bodies left inside the church. Instead, the movie is much more interested in its philosophical ideas. Therefore, it's never exactly scary and never generates any visceral thrills or shocks. Aside from an odd nightmare sequence, the film isn't attempting scares at all. Also, I'm afraid to say, both versions of "The Exorcist" prequel feature CGI hyenas. I guess somebody thought that was a good idea… Even if it is flawed, "Dominion: The Prequel to "The Exorcist"" is an intelligent, extremely well thought out film that wrestles with and presents some fascinating ideas. The performances are strong and the visuals are well constructed. Paul Schrader made a thoughtful continuation of "The Exorcist," one worthy of the name. It probably wouldn't have set the box office on fire but that still doesn't justify the existence of that Renny Harlin abomination.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
what the smell is this, the lame version?
chromer12323 July 2006
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.
12 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Solid. Unexpected, effective film.
stevenw-127 May 2005
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.
68 out of 97 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
terrible
jita114 November 2005
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!
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Father Merrin arrives in Africa and battling Pazuzu at a buried church in some chilling scenes
ma-cortes27 June 2006
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 .
15 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Better The Devil You Know...
Waerdnotte5 December 2011
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.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
An Interesting Turn Of Events
M-Apley22 June 2005
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.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Reader's Digest journey to Africa
Nikolai19685 May 2010
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....
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This film sticks with me
smitheeallen9 June 2005
I saw Dominion about three weeks ago and I'm still thinking about it. It's not the greatest movie ever made but it still was quite good despite its flaws (such as the lousy special effects).

Does Satan influence humans to do evil? Yes, at least in the movie he does. He plays on anger and fear. He posses the young deformed native man but in a way he possess everyone and uses their anger, fear, and guilt against them. This is what made the film intriguing.

I also loved the idea of the church being built over a pagan site to keep the evil at bay. Churches have been built over pagan sites maybe not for that reason but that made the film quite interesting as well.

As Roger Ebert put it the "film takes evil seriously." You don't get that too often in horror films and in most American films. The film is not a jump at and scare you thriller it's scary in an intellectual way and that does not happen too often in films.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
2 hours gone forever into the abyss(which is where this movie belongs)
disdressed1221 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
sometimes you go into a film with very low expectations,and occasionally you are pleasantly surprised.Dominion:Prequel to the Exorcist is not that movie.i was sure this movie would be a piece of crap,except that i would rather have watched a piece of crap for 2 hours.it would have been much more entertaining.so why did i watch it?well,it was on cable,i had nothing better to do,and i like to give every movie the benefit of the doubt.but the most important reason i sat through this thing:i ran out of pins to stick in my eyes.there is very little good about this film,other than the end credits.Stellan Skarsgard is a very talented actor,but his talents are wasted on this dud.you expect to see a movie with a demon,based on the title.the demon only appears well after half of the movie has elapsed,and it does not inspire fear at all,but is laughable.the movie is also disjointed and has many scenes that have no relevance.then again the movie has no relevance either.it does at times become a sermon,which is very annoying.special mention must go to the people in charge of the cgi effects.they have managed to creature the worst cgi animals i have ever seen.hyenas, several cattle and even a snake were very obviously all cgi .completely fake looking.unless you want to lose 2 hours of your life,don't even go near this thing. a well deserved 0*
12 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Starts Off Strong
ladymidath14 February 2023
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.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
A fascinating psychological horror film, very strong but with a rather disappointing ending
marebito4 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
First of all I must say that I didn't see the Harlin version of the film so I can't compare. Somewhere I can understand that the producers were not really happy with the work Scharder delivered. They probably expected a pure horror film with lots of physical horror, thrills and FX.

Finally what they got was a typical Scharder film (isn'that a bit normal when you hire the man as director?) about a priest having to cope with guilt and his lost in faith. Sure Scharder inserts 'supernatural' elements in it such as possession and exorcism but the horror remains psychological and becomes very rarely physical.

The describing of the psychological hell father Merit has to undergo (when he find himself in the dessert right after the second world-war which was very traumatic for him, as we see in the overwhelming first scenes) was really very strong. It gets under your skin.

Slowly the element of possession comes in (a young local boy) but Schrader remains focused on the internal Battle of father Merit. He struggles with himself, with his faith, searching for redemption: will he be strong enough to face 'the demon'? The film is very strong in depicting all of this and when inserting subtle but very convincing horror elements in to the story we know we're in for a (hopfully) strong climax.

SPOILER - But the climax is rather disappointing. At this point Scharder switches from psychological horror to physical horror (the final exorcism scene). Apparently aware that he's making a horror-film after all. I've not really a problem with the modification of psychological horror into (more mainstream) physical horror: the original Excorcist uses the same 'formula' very convincingly.

But the final exorcism scenes here aren't convincing at all, the special effects aren't believable at all, they rather look cheap and therefor this scenes really are a rupture with the rest of the film which actually looks great.

So Scharder delivers a very strong, captivating, strange and fascinating 'horror-film', cleverly building up to a climax. And there the film goes wrong. Really a pity because the film could have been a masterpiece.
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Tamer version of Exorcist: The Beginning
frankblack-799619 August 2019
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.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed