The Exorcism

I know that this film was technically being worked on before the serviceable pope's exorcist last year, but I find it funny that Crowe took both nearly exact roles as an exorcist in a 4 year span. This is a guy that won an Oscar that was once held as a top five actor in the 2000s. That's not to say he still can't act well because in both of these films, he carries it with his tenacious intensity and dedication to the character. It just seems peculiar that he's not in really any other films.

While, this film doesn't do anything particularly different and the cliches run amok . It's still a passable exorcism movie with captivating enough visuals and ok story to keep you intertwined. The supporting cast is actually rather great as well. Sam Worthington proves once again he's quite underrated and never truly got the respect he deserved. Crowe of course pours every bit he has into these films and while I'd like to see him get other roles if that's even possible, he has found a particular niche As the go to aging exorcist.

I was genuinely hoping some sort of 'The Pope's Exorcist' tie-in at the end as compensation for the time I wasted on this, but I can only dream.

The entire movie is a giant mess. Unsolved mysteries, forgotten characters and storylines and just dark - in terms of lighting; it was very hard to see some of the actors during some scenes.

It's neither gripping or scary. This movie is so bad that I can't get myself to even praise Crowe's performance.

I understand the production had huge hurdles to overcome but that won't even serve as an excuse for this awful film. How this managed to be green lit by so many execs etc and make it to the big screen will remain the real mystery.

As the title suggest, give this one a miss. You're actually better off not seeing it.

Giving this an 6/10 rating

Gets above 5 because Russell Crowe is good, as is David Hyde Pierce, Chloe Bailey is great, Adam Goldberg plays quite the unlikeable man in this, and it's really the performances that are good, the film is not enough, and at least it does have some good horror in it, as in a few good deaths, effects are good, it uses light, very well.

The set up is fine, the film is played out into day sessions, and Crowe's character goes deeper into the hell hole. It's not really that scary, but again, you have good acting but nothing really else that helps you feel that this is been done before, More needed on the characters and story please, think this might of been a rush job to get this one out, it's a disappointing film, not worth the trip unless you watch the trailer and it suits you.

The other big problem is that he played this character that is so similar in 'The Pope's Exorcist', a few months back, and a sequel is coming for that, go watch that instead of this. Like I wrote above, some good acting is why I gave it a 6 instead of a 5.

Why have exorcism movies become all the rage again? It's such a defeated sub-genre. There's no life left in it. I was really hoping 'The Exorcism' was going to do something unique or throw a twist on the concept. But no, it had nothing new to offer.

The only time this film really worked was during the interesting little glimpses behind the scenes of the movie within a movie being filmed. Like it wasn't overly captivating cinema, but compared to the tired "horror" the film was trying to put forward it was at least something with a pulse.

I never cared about the fate of any of the characters and never felt my heart-rate raise a single beat. This one was a miss. 4/10.

I remember seeing the trailer for this movie and thinking it was some sort of sequel to The Pope's Exorcist, but its not. Its not related at all and yet it feels like the same movie. Odd!

Not sure what's going on with Russell Crowe's career. I know that some stars get older and phase out, forced to do lower value movies or take supporting roles over leads in bigger ones but what was the crime to Hollywood Russell Crowe committed to have to do such bad movies other than him getting fat?

(What? Don't act like that's not a crime in Hollywood?) From my perspective the movie is filled with well enough known names: Adam Goldberg Chole Bailey. David Hyde Pierce is in this movie! David High Pierce! I known it's been a while sense Fraser has been on the air but I feel like Miles Crane must give the movie some star power. And Sam Worthington! This was a real puzzle. Did Worthington owe someone money? Does the filmmaker have something on this dude that would get him canceled?

I can only imagine what this movie was suppose to be is sitting somewhere on a cutting room floor in Hollywood cause this is not making sense. It's amazing how someone could have watched this movie and thought this was going to fly and I can only assume what Crowe signed up for and filmed was totally different than the finished product.

I can clearly see a good idea that just was not done well at all.