filipemanuelneto

I must confess that I knew absolutely nothing about the real Cicada 3301 until I decided to try to learn more about the film I had just seen - that is, I saw the film before knowing that it was very loosely based on a real event. And everything I read about the real event is as enigmatic as the puzzles thrown at the audience: absolutely nothing is known about who made them, nor their motive.

Director/screenwriter Alan Ritchson offers us a story that is good and intriguing enough to hold for most of the time. The pacing is good, and the post-production and editing were well executed, but despite this, the film still feels too heavy: without much difficulty, some unnecessary dialogue could be removed to give us a lighter version. On a technical level, the film has good cinematography and sets, some interesting visual effects and good props, but little more. The plot, as I said, is good and intriguing, but Ritchson got lost in the details: besides the unnecessary dialogue, the film has jokes so ridiculous that only a high school teenager would find them funny, and the characters behave with irritating immaturity. I didn't even want to talk about the ending... the ending is poor and doesn't give us anything as mind-blowing as it promised. It seems that Ritchson didn't know how to tie up all the loose ends of the story he made. There's a decent plot twist, but I'd seen it coming at least twenty minutes before.

What about the cast? I don't know any of the actors and the film seems to have been a good opportunity for professionals who are usually part of the large cast of big films and struggle to get roles and stand out from the crowd. Ron Funches proved to have some comedic talent and acting ability, but I don't know if we'll see him rise much higher than this; Jack Kesy has some charisma and manages to hold as the protagonist, but his character was poorly constructed, and his performance suffered greatly. I'm convinced that, with more mature material and a more experienced director, the actor would have gone much further than he showed here. As for Conor Leslie, I'm really not sure what to think. On the one hand, she fulfilled the minimum for the task she had at hand; on the other hand, she didn't convince me. I think her charm and feminine beauty help her... but let's face it, it would be sexist if I let myself be convinced just by that, so I prefer to keep my reservations.

In short, it's a reasonable film, with undeniable entertainment value. It's not one of those movies that makes you curse the moment you buy it and think you would have spent the money much better at a cheap drive-in restaurant... but it's also not a movie that gives you more than one or two viewings to fill idle time.

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.