I've never seen any of these two films from 2004 and 2005. I didn't know they were two different movies- though it seems like they have the same characters/actors. Since I've never seen either of them, can someone tell me what the difference between the two films is? Thanks.
"Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun."
[deleted]
I liked the beginning and seemed as the second ones ending was not to good. It is cool to see both. I didnt even know there was a second one until yesterday when I thought I was watching the beginning again and relized how many parts I didnt remember until I suprised that they actually made another one. I suggest seeing the beginning first then the second one, but both are cool to watch.
shareLOL you can't be serious that Dominion is better than The Beginning.
I'm watching Dominion right now and I'm sorry, but CheChe going "Don't ever touch me with that again, priest!" is so.... cheesy.
Seriously.
The possessed kid in The Beginning was much better.
Neither movie is oscar worthy, however, but seriously- Dominion and The Beginning have a few similar scenes, you can tell they used the same sets, and obviously a lot of the same actos, and it just makes me wonder if they were filming both at the same time or whatever.
I started watching Dominion today and went "Damn, I do not remember this at all, though I do remember x scene and x scene, but there was a different girl in the one I saw and a different priest, etc etc etc" No one believed me, thought I was crazy, so I had to look it up, haha.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Spot on. And the scene of her running down the tunnel at Merrin was so long, so bad, which such goofy cgi, I found myself involuntarily chuckling throughout. Awful.
[deleted]
You really should see both. We often hear stories about different versions of movies that have gone unproduced or had radical changes in the cast/director/etc. This is one chance where you actually get to see what might have been. Two completely different versions of the same movie. While I found the Harlin version ham-fisted and laughable, I nonetheless found comparing the two films fascinating.
shareOK;
This is what happened:
Morgan Creek hired Paul Shrader to direct a prequel to the Exorcist;
He turned in the movie that you know as "Dominion";
The excutives at Morgan Creek thought it was too cerebral and nowhere near scary enough; they then brought in Renny Harlin and re-filmed the whole thing;
They called it "The Beginning' and released it while they shelved Shrader's film.
Harlin's film (The Beginning)died at the box office and had awful reviews (rightly so), while Shraders, having been seen by a few critics, was being praised; Morgan Creek eventually decided to release Shraders vesion as "Dominion".
There is no question Shrader's is by far the better picture; it's an intelligent thesis on both the questioning of faith and the effect of outside religious inluences on older cultures.
If you have only seen "The Beginning" it's like only having seen the David Soul version of "Casablanca".....
Johnny
[deleted]
to a previous poster:
the kid wasnt possessed in the Beginning, he was just sick and takin sheisures and stuff, the doctor was the possessed one...wasn't that the twist of the movie? Maybe i am mistaken, havent seen them in a while.
but ya, Harlins for jumps ands scares, Shraders for better story/direction
"I`M RUNNIN THIS MONKEY FARM NOW FRANKENSTEIN..."
Seven and a half years later, allow me to point out that the director's name is spelled SCHRADER.
shareI gotta weigh in on this one having just watched Shraders version.It completely sucks,The film is poorly edited,has vague references,and isn't the slightest bit scary.Now I know what your gonna say and i don't think Harlan's is perfect either but at least he made it entertaining.Harlan's version is more in line with the first movie and the third which I absolutely love.Honestly if your looking for existentialism in your horror films you should quit watching them.Horror movies are about scares,chills,suspense and sometimes black comedy.The only one of these two movies that delivers at least some of this is Harlan's.Shraders movie is just plain bad and shares no connection with any other movies.The worst part is che che or whatever the hell his name is.I'm looking for something just a little more evil from someone that supposed to be possessed.His scenes where the demon comes out just looks like someone took a picture and forgot to use red eye reduction.
share[deleted]
I'm pleased now that I know why both of these films were released within such a short time span of eachother and I can definately say that they both pretty much sucked. Not even close to the original. Enough said.
share> The worst part is che che or whatever the hell his name is.I'm looking for something just a little more evil from someone that supposed to be possessed.
Guess what? That's the whole point of the script that was originally written under the supervision of... NONE OTHER THAN JOHN FRANKENHEIMER HIMSELF.
> Honestly if your looking for existentialism in your horror films you should quit watching them.
There isn't really any "existentialism" in this one, while many of the greatest horror films ever made are about politics and the philosophical notion of what makes good and what makes evil, and what "evilness" really means--which is also the theme of this one.
Though true that Paul Schrader is not making a horror film here; he is indeed making a western.
Evilness? No, that's not horror. Where did you get that idea? The idea of horror is to transpose the very things we learn to be immune to (cars, weather, war) and make them vital by showing us how we are immune. Idiot.
share> Evilness? No, that's not horror.
Well, since this film is not really trying to make a "horror," but nevertheless the investigation of the meaning of evilness is an important crucial theme of the horror genre.
> Where did you get that idea?
From this film itself.
> The idea of horror is to transpose the very things we learn to be immune to (cars, weather, war) and make them vital by showing us how we are immune. Idiot.
You obviously is the idiot since this sentence of yours is not making any sense, while cars weather and wars are not usually meant to be the "monster" or the antagonist in the horror genre. The source of fear in the horror genre is usually the supernatural, which usually are treated as a metaphor of what we consider as "evil," in most cases actually what the conservative values of the society wants us to consider as evil. The classic horror films are very good example of that--nobody really believes in vampires or man-made human created out of dead bodies. But what Dracula represents is the exotic other who is very sensual and sexual, while the monster of Dr. Frankenstein is at the same time taking the distorted cliche form of laborers while what Frankenstein did can be considered as blasphemous, since only God can create life. In many sci-fi horrors from the 50's to the 70's, the aliens from outer space are so cheesilly representing communists.
In reverse Dominion explores the idea of evilness, questions what we consider as evil and what we consider as good. Both the Nazis and the British soldiers can be more menacing than lucifer himself in this one.
"the beginning" has a few strong scenes, it just doesnt make any sense. "dominion" is a very intelligent movie and goes more the direction blatty originally intended. but it doesnt look very good in parts. especially at the end you see that they didnt have enough money for a decent post production.
shareDominion is not a traditional Prequel, It's better that it wasn't, Does a Prequel to the Exorcist really need to be a Horror Film? If you Cut all the Demon scenes out of the origianal Exorcist, it wouldn' be Considerd Horror.
The Truth is that The Exorcist is not a Traditional Horror Movie, Dominion's Story is a very differn't type of Story, Yes it should have been a little Creepier.
Dominion is an unfinished Film, It didn't have a Proper post Production, The Bad FX are unfinished, thats why they look Bad.
Eorcist:The Beginning actually had much more Money spent on it as Dominion, just not enough time.
Great point... "Does a prequel to The Exorcist really need to be a Horror Film?" Couldn't have said it better myself. Slasher movies, however, thrive on monotony. It's what they feed and breed on. The stories could take place days or decades apart, and it doesn't matter, really. The reality presented in a slasher flick is paper-thin and lacks the complexity and real-world sophistication of, say, The Exorcist as presented by Blatty and Friedkin.
shareright on. The money was spent on Harlin's film to be finished and Schrader's film never really got finished properly.
As far as I know, Schrader was only given $2 million to do the effects. That total might have covered a portion of Harlin's catering budget or something small like that.
Still, I have the distinct feeling that I'm the only person that likes BOTH movies. I look at both of them for what they are.
Harlin's is the type where you can just sit back and not have to think, with some cheese, decent gore effects and (although few and far between) some genuinely creepy moments (and I'm sure not many people will agree with that). Schrader's is the type where you have to use your brain cells to get what's going on.
my preference is for Schrader's film, mainly because the story was much better and the characters were a bit deeper. Harlin's film looks slick, and looks better, but it is a mess. No matter. I find both of them enjoyable, and that's what counts.
Don't ask me... I didn't know that there were two different films until tonight. Every time Dominion came on I would say to my wife, "Babe, we've seen it."
I'm pondering the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"
[deleted]
Read the trivia sections on this site for both films. It will explain what happened.
share