The Pope's Exorcist

The Pope’s Exorcist starts out entertainingly with the character of an unconventional, rebellious priest interestingly portrayed by the great Russell Crow. And then it is all the more unentertaining due to its impetuous piling up of genre clichés in the final third, which is more ridiculous than scary or in any way impressive. The film’s best scene, with which the still watchable and still developing part of the storyline culminates, is somewhere around the midpoint. A mainstream movie powered by a stellar cast, but in the context of the genre, it’s a total fiasco in comparison with some cinematic delights that don’t even make it into local theaters (X, Pearl). (04/15/2023)

It's an interesting effort. The cast is quite enticing - I don't think Russell would play in any BS movie. The story is good, and the execution is also solid, although there are a few weaker moments. Overall, I consider it well-done. I never expect a cultural masterpiece from a horror movie, but rather a fun and relaxing experience, which is exactly what this provided. The fact that it is based on a real character and a "real" story of an exorcist adds to its appeal. I'm curious to know how many people ordered books by Amorth after watching the movie :) I would give it three stars, which is an above-average rating for this genre. (05/05/2023)

Russell Crowe was apparently bored in conventional roles, his Jekyll & Hyde in the failed Dark Universe didn't work out, so his overdone genre cravings had to end here. And in all fairness, he is also the only reason why this schematic routine with no suspense, no creative ideas and no horror atmosphere is worth watching. You can see that he enjoys his unusual role immensely, diversifying it with small details, and even his crazy Italian accent will amuse more than annoy you from the very first moment (partly because it is far from the worst accent in the film). The rest of the vacuum around Crowe, however, is sheer exorcism routine from a routine director, who can only be credited with at least not cramming in annoying jump scares with loud sound effects, which is otherwise the plague of contemporary horror films. (04/05/2023)

I have a soft spot for supernatural themes, so I'm giving this one an extra star. Without Russell Crowe, it might feel like a B-movie, but he elevates it. Julius Avery did a fantastic job technically, and I'm glad someone other than James Wan tackled an exorcism horror. It shows that this genre can be approached differently. While James Wan's exorcism films have become a bit stale and recycled, this one worked pretty well for me. It's not the scariest, but with Russell in the lead and based on a true story, it adds a solid legend to the mix. Overall, I'm satisfied. (10/23/2023)

Julius Avery hit the mark again. Overlord, set during World War II, already had a lot to offer, and now he’s ventured into the challenging realm of exorcism. The casting of the lead actor was a brilliant move. Russell Crowe excelled in the role of the sarcastic and witty Vatican exorcist (I’ll need to find out more about this character). The entire film essentially stands or falls on his performance. Hats off to him... The film also features numerous scenes where you definitely won’t be laughing; the creators played with my genuinely unstable nerves with precision :D. Audiovisually, it’s top-notch (considering the modest budget of 18 million dollars, it’s a flawless final product), and the sound was perfected (Jed Kurzel did not disappoint). And if it veered more into action territory towards the end? Why not... I haven’t seen anything similar in the genre, so I welcomed it with open arms. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Next time, just fewer kids, who can ruin the whole experience with the rustling of chips and popcorn. Honestly, I don’t understand... For me, it’s 7.5/10 (I might rate it higher over time... a second viewing will decide). (04/23/2023)