Exorcist: The Beginning (Renny Harlin, 2004) or Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (Paul Schrader, 2005)

[Fletch F. Fletch]

You can download a copy of the trailer here: http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/index. ... e=newsfull

And here are some stills from said trailer: http://exmk.mkforces.net/exorcistthebeg ... schraders/

[Pinback]

So is this film getting a theatrical release? Or just DVD? I thought it was never going to see the light of day...

[g30]

Is it a completely different film (script) or just a re-cut? I did not see the version that came to theatres.

[cdnchris]

Is it a completely different film (script) or just a re-cut? I did not see the version that came to theatres.

To my understanding it's a completely different film. After Schrader was fired Harlin was brought in and they ended up reshooting something like 80%-90% of the film, to make it "bloodier" I haven't seen the one released but heard from many that it is a piece of shit. I have no interest in it because Harlin was behind it, but I'm definitely interested in Schrader's, even though it could also be a piece of shit (which actually wouldn't surprise me).

To my udnerstanding this film might get a DVD release, though I wouldn't be surprised if it got a theatrical release after the other bombed, to gain some losses, then release it on DVD. It could be marketed like the bootlegs in The Simpsons: "Exorcist the Beginning: Good Version"

[Theodore R. Stockton]

I read (probably from imdb's associated press bits) that Schrader's contract guaranteed a DVD release. I'm sure it was an AP piece so
that for what it's worth.

[THX1378]

I saw Exorcist the Beginning when it was out in theaters since I had free tickets and it's not to bad as some people say. The problem is that your never going to get the magic that was The Exorcist back in anyway with any film. Exorcist the Beginning is at least ten times better than Exorcist 2. but that isn't saying to much. I do hope that the Schrader does get a wide release since I know that the Harlin version didn't to bang up bussiness like they thought it would, but I don't think it was total flop at the box office. This could be away so that they can make there money back on the film and let people see the first version that was filmed.

[pmunger]

I'm a little confused. Since the film has been apparently reshot almost entirely, does anyone know if Vittorio Storaro is the cinematographer for both the Harlin and Schrader version?

[Dylan]

Vittorio Storaro was indeed the cinematographer on both versions, and reportedly, Storaro takes completely different cinematographic approaches to both of them. I'll defintely be seeing Paul Schrader's version whenever I have a chance to.

Dylan

[Fletch F. Fletch]

Here's an excellent article, from the LA Weekly, on the whole sordid story about the two versions of Exorcist: The Beginning for those who are interested:

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/38/features-foundas.php

[DrewReiber]

I still do not understand why Paul Schrader was ever hired in the first place.

When we got to speak to the producer of the film, he talked a lot about how screwed up matters were on production of the original version because they brought Schrader on to basically film a movie prepped by another director entirely (John Frankenheimer). Still, Schrader's two previous horror films (Cat People remake, Witch Hunt) were embarrassing messes... not unlike John Frankenheimer who was responsible for The Prophecy (1979) and his being hired as replacement for The Island of Dr. Moreau (1994).

It just seems to me, that from the very beginning the creative decisons made on this film were dubious at best.

[Pinback]

There's an excellent article on Schrader's film in today's Independent (online here). It is now officially titled Exorcist: The Original Prequel and will get its world theatrical premiere at the Brussels International Festival of Fantastic Film on March 18th...

[Pinback]

Another update:

According to Fangoria Online, Schrader's film will get a limited theatrical release in the US, on May 20th (opening at the same time as Star Wars: Episode III).

The film has also been retitled again, and will most likely be released as Dominion: A Prequel to The Exorcist.

[cdnchris]

While I know some people don't give a rat's ass about Ebert, he comments on this film in this week's "Answer Man Column" and had good things to say:

Q. I noticed that you did not review the prequel, "The Exorcist: The Beginning" that came out last year. Do you have something against the movies that continue the story of the original "Exorcist"?

Dan Harris, Brookings, S.D.

A. It was not previewed for critics, and I never caught up with it. I have, however, just seen Paul Schrader's original "The Exorcist: The Prequel," which was shelved by the studio, reportedly because it was "too serious." Renny Harlin was hired to make a version that replaced three of the four leads, spent $50 million on top of Schrader's $30 million, and the movie scored only 11 percent on the Tomatometer.

The Schrader version is a very good film, strong and true. It is intelligent about spiritual matters, sensitive to the complexities of its characters, and does something risky and daring in this time of jaded horror movies: It takes evil seriously. It will have a limited theatrical run next month before a DVD release.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... =ANSWERMAN

(and as an aside he gives a positive comment about Criterion in another question referring to ads on DVDs.)

[Dylan]

A new interview with Paul Schrader on the project:

http://www.quartertofour.com/bloodynews ... _erik.html

From the website:
Schrader was willing to sit down with Erik and discuss the project’s troubled history, and speaks candidly for the first time about Morgan Creek CEO James Robinson, Caleb Carr, Harlin’s Exorcist: The Beginning, and the resurrection of his aborted film.

Schrader also talks about working with the great Vittorio Storaro (whom he says teaches near Cinecitta and brings many of his students to his shoots.....damn, how I'd love to be in Storaro's class!). Great interview.

Dylan

[Lino]

According to this site here, it opens this week:

http://movies.channel.aol.com/movie/main.adp?mid=22349

[DrewReiber]

While I know some people don't give a rat's ass about Ebert, he comments on this film in this week's "Answer Man Column" and had good things to say

Oh, I so hope people take Ebert's word on this. If there was ever a chance that he was going to burn his readers, this is gonna be it.

[Dylan]

For those who care, Ebert posted his three-star review:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... S/50412001

It's a good review, I think. Like many, I'm very interested in seeing this (if, for anything, Storaro's photography, but also because I'm a fan of Schrader). I look forward to reading what members here think.

Dylan

[stroszeck]

Bottom line, is this worth clunking down $9 or should I wait for the DVD? I'm a huge schrader fan that HATED HATED the Harlin version. Sucked major balls.

[jesus the mexican boi]

Bottom line, is this worth clunking down $9 or should I wait for the DVD? I'm a huge schrader fan that HATED HATED the Harlin version. Sucked major balls.

Wait for it.

I drove 30 miles to catch the last screening in my area. People walked out of the theater. I stayed and watched the whole thing, but I was very disappointed. It's better than Harlin, but that's not saying much. It's a mess. It has a sluggish sense of pacing, seems to be missing certain connective-tissue scenes, and has a laughable demonic villain. It also contains some poignant philosophical/religious moments straight out of Last Temptation of Christ. But they're buried in the rest of the dreck.

In my opinion, Vittorio Storaro's cinematography was much better represented in the Harlin version.

So I'd wait.

[Dylan]

I'd say that almost everybody who sees this film seems intensely underwhelmed by it. I still look forward to seeing it, though I'm not expecting it to be a masterwork (I want to see the Harlin too, just to compare).

And just from the trailers on both, it does seem that Vittorio Storaro was able to go all-out with his cinematographic style for the Harlin version, but was more restrained and not nearly as stylized for Schrader's.

Dylan

[Dylan]

Well, this has been out on DVD for over a week and I've read next to nothing about it. I'll certainly be seeing it within the next few weeks.

Since my last post, I have seen (and enjoyed) Renny Harlin's version (it's little more than a surprisingly satisfying cinematographic feast, but Storaro's work is damn gorgeous). I really look forward to seeing what Schrader did with the material, and when I do, I'll post my thoughts. However, I'm very curious to read other comments. Has anybody else seen it?

Dylan

[jesus the mexican boi]

I think they're both terrible messes, and whatever accolades Schrader got are strictly on the basis of comparison between his schlock and Harlin's shit. Storaro manages to make both films look beautiful, particularly in the landscape shots; otherwise, avoid both films like the plague. I went in with NO expectations and got less than what I was hoping for.

While Schrader's film is the more cerebral, spiritual, whatever, it also feels like it was edited with a rusty spoon. Scenes end abruptly. It has NO sense of rhythm. And maybe I was more than a little creeped out that the possessed villain looks something like my gay cousin.

Exorcist and Exorcist 3. All else is shite.

[Gordon]

It [Schrader's film] has NO sense of rhythm.

Bingo. I saw it on the shelf and I was feeling frisky and I am an admirer of much of Schrader's oeuvre, so I took a chance. It starts brilliantly in Holland with the Germans on the run and someone stabbing a soldier and Merrin locked in a terrible moral dilemma that is to haunt him throughout the film and probably his whole life and adds some poignancy to Friedkin's film. But it's just as Jesus says (no, not the Son of God; Jesus on this thread!) the film has bad pacing and no rhythm and for all of Storaro's crisp lighting, I felt that the film, all too often, looked like a modern TV series. The Pagan cavern looked hokey and the bald Satan was laughable. A weak confrontation. Where is that snarling demon that appears in his (and Father Karras') nightmare? Why get Sinéad O'Connor to play the Prince of Darkness? Madness. Stellan SkarsgÃ¥rd is great, as always, though and if they had used anyone else, it may have been an even weaker film. His scene with Clara Bellar in the kitchen is quite moving.

To tell you the truth, I was quite surprised when Schrader was announced as the director. Whenever he directs a film in which he had none or merely small, uncredited involvement in the writing of, I always get a little worried. He is one of those great dirctors who only ever hits his stride when he is working with his own screenplay. The Comfort of Strangers is superb, however, I feel. But he certainly has a superb understanding of Religion and Faith in regard to Cinema, so I was hoping for something totally unique, dark and very powerful, but overall, it didn't have the impact I feel it ought to have had. The location may have been a problem. Too many bright, daylight scenes in the somewhat artificial village. Too many brainless, stock characters, ie Ralph Brown's hot-headed Sergeant Major. The presence of the African tribe just confuses the narrative, I feel; that part wasn't handed very well. The score is a bit of a mish-mash, also and never gels with the imagery in a satisfactory way. I have heard that the score was rushed to completion after the production was canned. It shows.

Schrader's next project, Adam Resurrected (to be released in 2007) based on the Yoram Kaniuk novel, with the screenplay solely by Noah Stollman. The novel is about a former circus entertainer who was spared from the gas chamber in WWII and becomes the ringleader at an asylum for Holocaust survivors. Sounds somewhat like Jerry Lewis legendary unreleased 1972 film, The Day the Clown Cried. It has the potential to be an uncomfortable, harrowing film experience and I hope that Schrader 'realises his vision', to keep a cliche going!

[Dylan]

Just got through with Schrader's. What's most interesting is that I got honest emotions while watching this that I seldom receive from a horror film, and for that I'm pretty impressed. With that said, I guess I'll be the black sheep and say that I thought Schrader's "Dominion" was pretty good. I certainly won't say that it doesn't have problems, I won't say that it quite feels like a finished product, though in my opinion the majority of it succeeds as an emotional horror film.

It is important to say that unlike everybody else, I found plenty to like about Renny Harlin's "Exorcist: The Beginning," which I believe is a more sound film. Yes, Harlin's has an unnecessary prologue (complete with a Lord of the Rings-style CGI zoom back), and a few rather outrageous and incomprehensible scenes (like most of the death scenes, or big, messy battle between the Africans and the soldiers, which just seemed like an excuse to inject some action in there). But I liked it...it had a refreshingly slow pace, I found some of the more dramatic aspects compelling, the performances are good, and Vittorio Storaro's widescreen cinematography is his best work since "The Last Emperor." It seems to me that few try to make horror look beautiful, but this film succeeded. Harlin's film also has a pretty good ending, and a great final shot. Furthermore, there is no sense of reality, which I had fun with here.

Not we come to Schrader's, which focuses its time on the things that actual scare and intimidate us rather than gratuitously delivering violence, gore, and breathtaking cinematography. The opening scene in Holland with the snow is very nice, perfecting setting up the disturbing morality our protagonist Merrin is tortured by. I won't give away any spoilers, but I was impressed with how Schrader chose to unleash the invisible evil in subtle and believable ways throughout the community, particularly one sudden violent outburst. As a pure agnostic, I was also impressed with how Schrader communicated a loss of religion, and the powerful inevitable gain because of the evidence of true evil.

Gabriel Mann as Francis and Clara Bellar as Rachel are good, though I prefer Harlin's, if only for cinematic preference. Renny Harlin's film cast handsome James D'Arcy as the young priest Francis, and he also cast the drop-dead gorgeous Izabella Scorupco as the lead nurse...not the most believable casting, but enjoyable nonethehess. In Schrader's, Gabriel Mann honestly looks like every young 20s priest I've ever seen, so I completely believed him in this role, and really, if you look like James D'Arcy you probably won't be a priest (that's debatable, I know, but the point is that priests don't typically look handsome, they usually look normal at best). Clara Bellar is pretty, not Hollywood model-godess beautiful like Scorupco, but pretty in an Earthy sort of way, no doubt what the role called for. Stellan Skarsgard is great in both. For "Dominion," the acting style seems to be that of older Hollywood films.

Schrader's version is mostly realistic, and in that, the cinematography is far more restrained. More key for "Dominion" is the lighting, which is impeccably Storaro in terms of how a shade of light can accompany an emotion on the dot. Harlin allowed Vittorio to go all out and create a more elaborate visual canvas unlike what he's been able to do in some time.

I liked the scenes Gordon points out with Skarsgard and Bellar talking, which are indeed the most powerful in the film, when the lights go out and they're there in the darkness…you can sense some hidden romance that Schrader and his writers keep to the characters without releasing any of it during the course of the film, helped also by Storaro's shadows. However, I also really liked how these scenes were handled in Harlin's (in his version they kiss, and it looks beautiful).

Nobody's mentioned that brief “Spellboundâ€

[a.khan]

Not to veer off track, but anyone else agree that Schrader's “Exorcistâ€