The Exorcist: The Beginning / Dominion (The Same, Yet Different)

Maire says:
Since these two movies are the same, yet different (just like you and me!), you get a two for one review! If you were not aware, these two films were shot simultaneously, so, I can only believe, there’d be a failsafe if one was completely terrible. The problem is, they’re both horrible.

And on to the plot!

Ah yes, the ol’ let’s-just-dig-up-this-thing-that-was-obviously-buried-for-a-reason-because-there-certainly-won’t-be-any-ill-effects plot device.

• Hmm, this centuries old tomb surely is structurally sound. Oh wait, OH NO!!!

• Ah yes, excavating this buried temple in a remote part of Africa is definitely a good idea. Pazuzu-who?    

Of course hilarity ensues.

If I had to pick, The Beginning is better than Dominion if only for the crazy homicidal kid. There are some seriously effed up deaths caused by this kid. It’s kinda great! Also, it has much less lame-o Pazuzu. Granted that’s not saying much. Pazuzu is still in there a lot, but he’s just not as lame as in Dominion.
 
That last paragraph may have the titles confused, but since none of us want to rewatch either, you'll just have to take my word for it.

Corey says:

If one of my compatriots didn't talk about how these films got made, or if you don't know, go ahead and read up.  I'll wait here.

Got it?  Ok, good.

These films run together in my mind, mainly due to the fact that they share so much of the same footage.  Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are bad films.  They are awful on their own merit.  One (don't ask me which one is which) has terrible cgi dogs, or wolves, or something.  It also has the British military doing what they do best: treating colonists like dirt.  And, it has a sexy female lead who ends up being the possessed.

Quick aside.  Dear not-at-this-point-in-time Father Merrin:  Just bang the hot chick.  You get some sweet action, and the fans get to see some boobage.  For real, more skin would have maybe at least kept me from wishing I was watching anything with Ray Romano in it.  Maybe.

The other film has a bunch of scenes with Nazis and Jews that totally make sense, a possessed kid, and the return of our old friend Pazuzu! Well, to be fair, I don't remember if both films had Pazuzu, but I think it was only the one.  Also, the church buried in the desert was cooler looking in this one (I think).

There is one scene that both films share, though.  One diamond in the rough.  One shining moment of cinematic brilliance that will rouse you from you drinking game induced haze.  

A baby. Born stillborn. Covered in maggots.  And it looked AWESOME.

So kudos, whichever director filmed that bit! Not only did you film the coolest scene in these train wrecks, it made it into both films!

Salty says:
When the House of Sequels was first conceived, I thought it would be cool if every post that I did was positive about the movie, and that even if I didn’t like it, I would try at least to make my response fun or entertaining – I just want to amiably agree to disagree with fans of each bad film - because, as a fan of horror, I have to be willing to accept criticism about the movies I love, but I find it a little offensive the negative reviews are malicious, not to mention a waste of my time. Who wants to read about someone ranting about something that they hate? (No one, Internet, no one wants to listen to you rant about things you hate) So, I at least tried to make my reviews for The Heretic and Psycho (’98) sort of fun in the way I pick on them, but these Exorcist sequels are really making it hard for me.

We at the House of Sequels watched Dominion last in the franchise and I was prepared, if not expecting, to like it much more than The Beginning. After all, I like Paul Schrader (I own Taxi Driver and Bringing Out The Dead and I really like both movies and I have been trying to track down a copy of the mysteriously hard to find Rolling Thunder for a while), but Dominion is bad, and if I were a producer on the movie and I saw the dailies, I would have fired him too. I know that’s harsh, but this movie is just a failure.

I give it credit for trying to do something unique with the series (something that The Exorcist franchise does have to its credit is a very, very diverse set of films, and they kill a kid, which is a filmmaking move I respect because the moment you kill a kid in your movie you know that a part of the audience just checks out). That said, I just don’t understand what this movie is going for. Why anyone would want to make it or most importantly, why I would want to watch it? If you have a reason to like it let me know (and I mean really like it, not I like it because it sucks so bad it’s funny), I would be genuinely interested to hear it

As for the other film, I can’t lie; I went into The Exorcist: The Beginning expecting it to be terrible and it was and is. Why does The Exorcist need this many sequels? Because it’s a bankable title, I get that and respect it, but, at the same time, the film doesn't lend itself to follow-ups. Taking into consideration the way the story of the original plays out, I just think that it is much harder to make a likeable follow up than it would be to make one for say Nightmare on Elm Street (which I think gives additional credence to very likable The Exorcist III). Doesn’t the fact that this film is a prequel already suggest that there is little room for movement in the series?

As if the beginnings of the film weren’t precarious enough, add fact that the film is a salvage.  It's a picture cut partway through production given to the credited director to save it from being a turd, and I am not saying that you can’t polish a turd into an acceptable product, but I am saying that if you polish a turd with a bunch of bad CG and swap out some of your actors, you are going to get a shiny turn with a bunch of bad CG hyenas and some different actors.

The only really great part about The Beginning is that after reviewing it with Dominion, we here at the House of Sequels don’t have to review anymore Exorcist movies.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆	☆	☆

The Exorcist - the Franchise Introduction

One franchise down! Next up we’ve decided to go with one of the more unlikely entries to make our list: The Exorcist. It is a unique horror series in that it’s sort of what Marvel (DC is better) did with The Avengers only in reverse… only it’s a horror movie… and there are no superheroes… What I mean is what’s weird about it is that all the sequels are individual adventures of each of the characters that are joined in the first film. Part 2 follows Reagan, part 3 follows Father Karras and 4 and 5 are alternate histories of Merrin, which is something that Marvel does – it all comes together.  The franchise does reach the 5-film watermark as we have decided to treat The Beginning and Dominion as separate films as they do in fact have different, though similar story lines, and are credited to different directors (one of whom also made Nightmare on Elm Street 4, so we will be seeing more of his work later).  Who would of thought that a film with a masturbating twelve-year-old girl would have so many sequels… oh.

The Exorcist II: The Heretic - destroying Linda Blair

Maire says:
What the fuck did I just watch?

Yes, I know it’s one of those movies that you need to watch, in a hipster kind of way.

Yes, it did lead to a moment of awesomeness when Corey realized why he knew the name Pazuzu, and accurately recreated how he knew it.

And yes, it allowed for J. Spurlin over at imdb to come up with this understated gem for his plot summary:

His investigation takes him to Africa where he locates another recipient of Merrin's exorcising and learns something fascinating and terrible about locusts.

BUT, the above ≠ good movie. Or even laughably bad movie. Remember, I’m the schlock guy of the group, but hoo boy, this was a baaaad film.

The beauty of The Exorcist is its epic clash of “good vs. evil” in an unexpected container. The horror of The Heretic is its desperate attempt to cling to its predecessor’s glory, while derailing so quickly and horrifically, nothing is left but a shell of what could have been an ok film and another 90 minutes to sit through.

But hey, it’s not all bad for Linda Blair. Just check out all of this awesome modeling work she did in the early 80’s.

Salty says:
Watching The Heretic is like being in a serious accident: you don’t really know what’s happening or why when it’s going on, but you are pretty sure that it’s really, really bad and you just want it to be over. You wish you had avoided it, but you just have to let it play out. Then, once it ends and you get some distance on it and you start taking in the details, you start to question it. Why is that doctor’s office full of glass walls? Was that even a doctor’s office? Why did that man have a strobe light on his forehead? What the fuck was up with those moths? Isn’t that the dude from Field of Dreams? Why doesn’t that skyscraper’s balcony have a complete railing? What is this movie about? Did the person I watched this movie with slip me some drugs? I have only scratched the surface here. This movie creates questions upon questions.

And afterwards the movie haunts you, and for a while you can’t relate to people who haven’t had the same experience, but you bond intensely with those who have. You may try to explain it to friends and loved ones, but they don’t understand unless they experience it for themselves. So, you try to move on and pretend it didn’t happen, but it becomes the standard by which you compare all other bad you films you’ve seen. I am not kidding; this is what seeing The Heretic is like. How did this move not obliterate a lot of people’s careers? Was this movie the result of a bet? Does anyone like this movie? I don’t know any of the answers to any of the questions that I have put forth here.

Corey says:
Before I start on II, let me give you my interpretation of the star ratings that we use here at the ole’ House.  

☆ :  Garbage.  Very little (if any) redeeming quality. 

☆☆ :  There’s some good stuff in there, you just have to look for it a little. 

☆☆☆  A film that must be watched.

I want to emphasize that 3 star rating: a film that must be watched.  It doesn’t say it has to be good.  And now, Exorcist II.

This film is baffling in how bad it is.  I’m not sure if bad is even the correct word for it.  If you haven’t seen II, I must insist.  To just try to put into words how I feel about the film, much less the quality, is very difficult.

First, Reagan’s back! Hooray!  Let’s hook her up to this weird sci-fi brain thingy!  Repressed memories GO!  Now James Earl Jones, and Africa, and Pazuzu! And bugs, don’t forget the bugs!  Some dudes fall off of a cliff!  Reagan can heal the sick!  Roll credits!

Ok, did that last paragraph make sense?  No?  Good.  Now, imagine how that is my review of II, keeping in mind... I give it three stars.

Maire	Corey	Salty
☆	☆☆☆	☆