Scrivener Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 For the uninitiated it is vitally important to understand this film's unique history, as the circumstances are entirely without precedent. In 1999 Warner Brothers began work on an Exorcist prequel with John Frankenheimer set to direct. The story was to be drawn from elements of William Peter Blatty's book not touched on in the first movie. More precisely, the source of Father Lancaster Merrin's (Stellan Skarsgard in both Schrader and Harlins films, Max von Sydow in the original) particular religious dilemma. The original screenplay was developed and written by William Wisher Jr. (Terminator 2, 13th Warrior, Judge Dredd) with contributions by Caleb Carr. When John Frankenheimer became ill in 2000, well into preproduction, Warner then attached Paul Schrader (American Gigolo) to the project. In it's original form the story was primarily concerned with faith, temptation, facing one's own demons (literally and figuratively). Schrader was given a reasonable budget of $40m to make the film as written. What Schrader delivered in early 2003 was a serious, contemplative drama. The studio was incensed. Clearly they wanted blood, guts, green vomit, and heads spinning. In an unprecedented move that shocked the entire industry, Warner executives stuck the film in a vault, fired everyone involved, and brought in Renny Harlin (Die Hard 2, Cliffhanger, Driven) to remake the film as he saw fit... provided it was adequately "shocking." Schraders cut was shown to a select few during the time Harlin worked on his version and, despite the studios displeasure with Schraders version of the film, the word that got out was quite positive. Until now, the only version available to the public was Harlins sloppy big-budget CG-fest. I can say with great enthusiasm (especially if you hated Harlins as much as I did) that Paul Schraders version is a vastly superior film. It does, however, have a rather absurd climax  which is not so much the fault of the script or the direction, but because of budgeting issues. When the studio canceled the film, the soundtrack and effects were not complete and Schrader was forced to improvise on shoestrings when the studio decided to resurrect it. Most of the film gets by just fine without the bells and whistles  its not a very high-tech movie and most of the effects in the film were practical with very little CG. A proper soundtrack would have benefited the film greatly, to be sure, but it never gets in the way that is, until the films climax. Right when things start to get the most interesting the soundtrack suddenly becomes like something out of a low-budget 80s horror film. To make matters worse, we are assaulted with a very cheap, very cheesy looking northern-lights effect (again, reminiscent of a very cheap 80s lightning rotoscoping) that permeates every scene. Its a sad thing when cheapness like this manages to creep into an otherwise great film especially during its climax. It can ruin the entire experience and sadly it comes very close to doing that here (and for many people, Im sure it will do just that). The rest of Dominion however is carried magnificently by a fantastic cast, excellent script, and interesting twist on the possession. Sure Dominion is not without its faults but those are almost exclusively a result of having to budget with which to finish the movie. With this in mind you may appreciate it more for what it is  a great drama whose moral is as literal as it is figurative. Better, it meshes much more readily with the original 1973 hit than other Exorcist sequel/prequel to date. That alone makes it worth at least one viewing. 8/10 For SC: The gore level is so low as to be virtually nonexistent. I can't for the life of me figure out why this is rated R and not PG-13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 ...but how does it compare to the first Exorcist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scrivener Posted October 28, 2005 Author Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 It's still nowhere near as brilliant as the first Exorcist (had Schrader the budget to finish post properly it may have been better) - and it's not really all that scary - but it is a very effective dramatic prologue to the first movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain McMahon Posted November 18, 2005 Report Share Posted November 18, 2005 What's the difference between this and Exorcist: The Beginning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supreme Cmdr Posted November 22, 2005 Report Share Posted November 22, 2005 One is shitty and other isn't. Guess which is the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now