L'esorcismo di Emma Schmidt - The Ritual

I'm guessing that Russell Crowe was busy for this latest exercise in priestly exorcism so an hardly recognisable Al Pacino decided to have a go. He is a Capetian father drafted in to help the reluctant Fr. Joseph (Dan Stevens) with a particularly difficult task. Fr. Theophilus must help rid the poor young Emma (Abigail Cowen) of an unwanted bodily guest. His methods do not impress the rather naive young father, nor the sisters in attendance as she increasingly resorts to involuntary bleeding, foul language, violent outbursts and even the usual hanging upside down from the ceiling lamp trick whilst under relentless assault from the repetitious bible verses being read across what I counted are at least seven of those ritual attempts at expulsion. Sound familiar? Well that's because it is. Aside from Pacino turning in a slightly different style of performance from his norm, the rest of this hasn't an original bone in it's body. Indeed, its only claim to fame appears to be that it is based on the original, almost century old, transcriptions from Fr. Joseph of events that are really supposed to have happened but we've seen this all predictably play out so many times before that even the traditional collapsible bed doesn't turn an head - spiritual or metaphysically. The one element that does provoke a little interest is, perhaps, the clear indication that Catholicism in the 1920s was riddled with incantations, superstitions and a degree of symbolism that probably hadn't changed since much since there was a Borgia on the throne of St. Peter. This might work on the telly at Halloween of you're full of Grappa, but as a cinema experience it is disappointing and entirely forgettable, sorry.

In a world where two or three exorcism movies are being released each year, you have to do something special to make your mark. Unfortunately, The Ritual is about as bland as you can get from an exorcism movie.

It's first issue is that it commits the cardinal sin of not being remotely scary or creepy. Partly this is because everything it is doing has been done to death, and has been done better in other films. Partly it is because it doesn't even seem to try too hard to cultivate a spooky atmosphere. The whole tone and look of the film is just dull.

The performances are OK, but nothing special. Al Pacino is wasted in a pretty formulaic role, and Dan Stevens does his best to put meat on the sparse bones of a beleaguered priest tasked with hosting the exorcism. It is a wonder how such a good cast was assembled for such a poor film.

Ultimately though, I do think this film falls apart with its story. It is just so formulaic and derivative of the exorcism genre. I knew every single story beat that was going to happen before it did. Nothing here is remotely new. I think they rested on their laurels due to the fact it was based on a real story, but that doesn't make it any better. The whole thing just lacked any real theatricality or spark.

Of all the exorcism films that I've seen in recent years, this is most definitely one of the least inspiring. One to avoid.

The film is about satanic rituals. We can say it's based on cliché themes. A young girl gets possessed by a demon. There are two priests in the film. These priests try to save the girl from this situation by performing satanic rituals. And the whole film goes on like this... From a technical point of view, the first thing that caught my attention was the camera movements. There were a lot of unnecessary camera moves. I guess the camera was constantly moved to add some action. Even in a random scene, the camera moves in a strange way, it shakes. We saw unnecessary zooms. This was disturbing.

Let's move on to the second point. The script was a total fiasco. Maybe the story could have been expanded, the background of the female character could have been explored. The script felt very incomplete, and the events were presented to the audience in a very narrow way. There's almost no depth in the screenplay.

The theme of suspense was kept in the foreground, while horror was pushed to the background. They say it's based on true events. Maybe that's why they avoided exaggeration, I don't know. This looks like a horror movie, but it's not. Actually, it's not even suspense. It creates tension in a few moments but doesn't lead to anything. It's not what you expect. For me, it was a disappointment...

I know the reviews aren't great but I like Pacino and Dan Stevens, plus I'm usually overly forgiving with these type of movies, so I would have got some enjoyment from it.

I said would have because I couldn't get very far into it.

The reason was the camera which was so distracting. It was shaking with random zooms and unnecessary camera angles. I don't think I've experienced anything like this before, and hopefully nobody will attempt it ever again.

Baffling choice for such a movie. I guess if the director didn't want anyone to focus on his movie for a split second, then mission accomplished.

In 1928-based true-tale "The Ritual" priests Dan Stevens & Al Pacino (supported by nuns like Patricia Heaton & Ashley Greene) perform a three-week+ exorcism on Abigail Cowen (excellent). That exorcism though is basically just a repetition of rituals with similar outcomes (including everyone but Pacino getting deeply disturbed (and often injured)) and there's no real exploration of whether Cowen is actually mentally ill rather than possessed (it's mentioned - but dismissively). With solid performances and stylish direction (from writer David Midell) it is superior to most recent exorcist flicks (like the abysmal "The Pope's Exorcist")... but it still ain't too good.