filipemanuelneto

What to say about exorcism movies? Despite starting from varied premises, they all end the same way: a CGI spectacle where the demon seems to have almost unlimited power and the Catholic ritual is transformed into a show of light and color. There are films that did this so well that marked generations, like "The Exorcist". Others, like "The Conjuring", do everything necessary to intimidate, but fail to inspire fear. Some are passable, some bearable, some funny. But I don't remember one that shows the true ritual. The exorcism ritual is not as they portray it. Anyone can study it, it's on the internet, and it's "just" a religious ceremony performed by a priest, in front of witnesses, to free a person according to the power and authority of Jesus Christ, given by Him to His Church. This film, of course, is anything but that.

Father Gabriele Amorth was one of the most famous exorcist priests of all time, and one of the most controversial figures in the Church. Throughout a career where he claims to have performed over one hundred thousand exorcism sessions (which doesn't mean he freed one hundred thousand people from evil, as a person may require a varying number of sessions), Amorth defended the veneration of Mary, the idea that Satan is at war with the Catholic Church, the absolute evil of magic and divinatory practices, and the diabolical influence on several bishops he knew.

I am not a theologian, but as a Catholic, I believe there is a war between Good and Evil and that the Church, and each person, is challenged to take a side: never in human history have moral values been so contested, never has the world around us been so openly permeable to hedonism. Faced with a church that invites to mercy and repentance for the evil we do, society asks who said that this evil is the Evil and insists on its practice, defending a cult of excesses and the pleasure as a life goal. Yes, there is a battle underway and Satan has already won a victory by making half the world believe that he doesn't exist. He does, and he walks the earth like a fierce and furious lion. Only the foolish, blind, or arrogant fail to see him.

Director Julius Avery has managed to give us a film that does what it promises: to intimidate the audience and make them uncomfortable. Is it scary? Honestly, not to me. However, I won't condemn him for that. The film has enough merit to stand on its own as a good piece of entertainment, with excellent sets and costumes (I especially liked the exterior setting of the monastery and the scenes in Rome with the Lambretta), very good visual effects and CGI, and an effective soundtrack. Added to this is a fictional but intriguing story, good development of the central characters, and a commendable performance from the cast, especially Russell Crowe, who proved himself fully up to the challenge. Among the other actors, I would like to highlight, positively, the contributions of Franco Nero and Alex Essoe. However, there are aspects that seem underdeveloped or dispensable, such as the subplot involving an inquiry into Father Amorth, which seems to be in the film only to show the audience how controversial he was in real life.

I was surprised when, after seeing this film, I realized that not only it wasn't made in the USA, Edgar Allan Poe's homeland, but it had been met with a kind of rejection in this country, not deserving, as far as I could tell, the slightest attention. Okay, it's a fairly low-budget and reasonably weak film, but other worse and equally foreign films have had much better acceptance at the US box office and critic. I don't really know what happened here.

Director Chris Hatton (who also wrote the screenplay) brings us a supernatural thriller where a young Poe leads a group of young cadets from the US Academy and feels compelled to investigate a bizarre event in a village the group had to pass through. The film functions as a tribute to the writer without, however, fictionalizing anything real... the film's story is 100% the director/screenwriter's invention: Poe was, in fact, a cadet at West Point, but was discharged, and although the film shows the character consuming opioids, there is no proof that Poe was addicted to drugs.

On a technical level, the film works very well: the budget may have been limited, but every penny was spent carefully, seeking to give the film the highest possible quality: the sets and costumes prove this, as do the visual effects used (yes, they are not the best available, but they work well in the way they were used) and the cinematography, where the fog, the lack of light, and the low contrast are used to create a more somber and dark atmosphere. The editing sometimes falters, but overall the film delivers what it promises and gives us a good supernatural mystery.

The cast is composed of a number of second-tier actors. Almost no one associates William Moseley, the protagonist, with the heroic Peter Pevensie from "Narnia", but it was precisely this actor. It wasn't a wasted effort; he shows energy and ability, but he will have to dedicate himself to more notable projects if he wants to succeed as an adult actor. Melanie Zanetti, who brought to life the strongest female character, does a very competent and intense job, which is interesting to see considering that this was practically the first film where the actress could shine as an adult. David Hayman and Kate Dickie provide welcome and effective support, as does Oberon Adjepong. In short, the film was a good opportunity for a number of actors from a common cast to stand out and gain some limelight, and the work they did greatly contributes to the quality of the final product.

The biggest problem with the film ends up being its rather slow narrative style, which won't be everyone's cup of tea, and also the succession of genre clichés that the film recycles and uses, in a more or less intelligent way depending on the context. For me, this was positive because it gave me time to connect with the plot and become more interested and curious, but most people want to rush through it and see the blood, and jump in their seats at some sound effect or more basic scare. That type of audience will be disappointed.

Judging by the title, I thought this would be just another one of the many erotic dramas that thrived during the 80s and 90s, but what I ended up finding was slightly better: directed by Adrian Lyne, it is a romantic drama that doesn't sound overly sweet and presents a stellar cast in a story with its touch of controversy.

Money is a powerful tool: it can save a man or end his life, and even his soul. How many people kill or die for money, or ruin other people's lives? Some consider it the source of human sins and evils... others find it the engine that moves the world. Can a man buy a woman's love, or only her attention and her body? The theme isn't exactly new, in film or real life, and although it's still controversial, the truth is there's no shortage of husbands who would find the proposal seductive, whether for the money involved or simply for the sexual thrill of knowing their wife is in bed with another man with their permission.

The director handles well the dramatic tension arising from the conflict between the characters and manages to avoid making the film overly sentimental or tearful, even though there are moments when emotions take over. The production made an effort to give Redford's character an image of power and excess, creating an environment of boundless luxury, glamour, and money that slips through their fingers like water: we have the Las Vegas setting and the boat, as well as the houses and costumes, worthy of European haute couture. The cinematography uses colors like gold and white when he is present, evoking not only his power but also the emptiness, the lack of human warmth and love, in contrast to what we see involving the couple: vivid, vibrant colors, cheerful environments full of life and dreams. They may not have a penny, but they have what matters: a solid, built love. The editing is excellent, giving the film movement with no dead moments. And of course, there's a bit of nudity, but it's puritanical considering the themes addressed.

The plot is what we know: a millionaire offers a young couple, who have just lost everything at the casino, one million dollars for a night of sex with the woman. And that ends up being the film's biggest flaw: whether through the chosen title or small details in its first third, it's too easy to guess what will be proposed and what will happen afterward. It's a film that offers no surprises; it's predictable as a straight line. Furthermore, there is, indeed, a cheap sentimentality that occasionally appears to spoil things, especially when the couple is arguing for the fourth or fifth time in a row, and we just want them to sign the divorce papers quickly to shut up. After all, they got themselves into that mess, nobody forced them, there's no way to feel sorry for them!

Perhaps the strongest point of the film is Robert Redford's superb performance. This is one of the films that marked his career, and it was also a great challenge for an actor accustomed to much more benign and sympathetic roles. His character had to have a more complex personality, and he rose to the occasion completely. Demi Moore is equally in good shape, giving us a nuanced performance that did much to establish her as one of the most sought-after actresses of the 90s. The way she acts alongside Woody Harrelson is magnificent. I even doubted whether he would be able to give his character the right tone, because, let's face it, Harrelson isn't exactly a heartthrob, but he seems suitable for what the character demands of him: a good man with a good heart and obvious vulnerabilities. So it works very well!