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 |
|---|---|---|
| ☆ | ☆ | ☆ |
