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.

The scene setting to start was good, strong pacing and intriguing.

Unfortunately it never developed from there...loose story line, there was never any reason behind the occurrences of the film.

What relation did any of the references have to the story line? You'd have to see it for this to be a spoiler... and I don't personally think you should...

What happened to the characters?

Would I recommend this film? Simply put, no, spend your money watching something else!

It's a shame watching a film with Russell Crowe headlining and coming away from it saying.. why has he decided to star in this movie? Is this a sign his acting career has possibly seen better days?

If you want a few cheap jump scares go for it, but you've been warned!!

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.

I will say just don't watch it . The movie starts with a good suspense, but its just for 10 minutes, in the entire movie theres not a single scary scene to consider this movie as horror film. The entire movie is so slow and felt like watching it forcefully just because i have paid for the tickets, 1.5 hours felt like 3 hours.

They try to put some scary scenes in between the movie but just at the moment it feels like getting interesting in the movie, the scene shifts to something else and everything just gets ruined. Even the scary scenes cannot be considered as scary, everything is predictable and.tge scenes are just for few minutes.

The climax is super dull and doesn't satisfies at all.

I'm a huge fan of Russell Crowe, but this is beneath him. Basically he's an actor on the skids playing a priest in a horror film. No, thats the plot, a wink wink at the audience kinda thing. It takes however forever to get the plot moving. This story has been overdone in Hollywood, not one incarnation comes close to 1973 The Exorcist and 1990 Exorcist III, both far superior to this trash. Also, I find it annoying that every film must be beholden to some Hollywood checklist, his daughter is lesbian and they make her love interest African-American to check off some required list. I'm not prejudice, but I feel it's so obvious that they are just fulfilling some list, feels forced. Anyways, a huge pass. I've seen more gore and scares on a Walking Dead episode on AMC.

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.

The Exorcist (1973) is a classic of horror cinema, with standout performances, superb direction and shocking special effects sequences. The Exorcism is utter garbage.

Flushing his career even further round the u-bend, the once great Russell Crowe stars as washed-up Hollywood actor Anthony Miller (a not-very-demanding role), who's given another chance when he wins the part of a priest in a possession horror film, the previous actor having taken his own life. However, the production turns out to be cursed, with those who take on the role falling under a demonic influence.

Instead of dealing with an actual demon, the majority of this film sees Tony struggling with the metaphorical demons of his troubled past, which include abuse as a child, the death of his wife, his consequent addictions to alcohol and drugs and his strained relationship with his daughter Lee (Ryan Simpkins, who fails to convince as a teenager). Director Joshua John Miller is under the mistaken impression that he is making something profound and meaningful instead of a simple scary movie and the result is a film that is weighed down by its all-too-serious approach.

The final act delivers the usual possession movie tropes, but none of it makes much sense in the scheme of things, and the extremely tedious build-up simply isn't worth the effort.

2024 has been a really strange year for horror, as far as I am concerned. Every time I think I have seen the worst that the year is going to throw at me, along comes another, even more diabolical piece of trash. 1/10.

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.

First, let me just say I found this to be a decent little horror movie where there's more going on. People were expecting a story of boos and jump scares and while this has its decent amount of those, there's a lot more to the movie.

The writer/director is the son of the original star of the Classic Excorcist movie. In fact, the name Miller will pop up as the protagonist here which I've got to say isn't coincidence, or at least doesn't feel like it.

Russell Crowe is filming a horror movie with some spiritual, supernatural elements. Lots of strange things begin happening and the explanation behind them could be a number of things which the movie explores. No spoilers here but if you're aware of the back story of the making of the original Excorcist movie and have heard about all the accidents that plagued that movie's set, it makes you wonder if this might at least be inspired by a true story.

The director has talked about his father struggling as an actor and how he would see his father's movies. He wrote another movie Final Girls, one of the most original horror movies I've ever seen, as therapy in dealing with how hurt it is to lose a dad, but know that he will live on through films.

I'll say this one has some underlying theme here centered around the behind the scenes of a horror movie. I found it to be decent and recommend it for its original content of a genre that's been seen before. While it's not everyone's kind of movie, I'll say I enjoyed it because it tells a pretty decent little scary story.

What an excellent day to see an advance screening of "The Exorcism".

When you hear Russell Crowe is going to play a troubled actor "Anthony Miller" with a past of alcohol and drug abuse you immediately think this will be a stretch for Rusty who's never made a headline once over crazy behaviour.

Oh wait a minute...that Russell Crowe...well now that'll be super easy, barely an inconvenience!

It's not the first time Russell has fought off demons on the Big Screen either.

Hands up if you remember "The Pope's Exorcist" from last year?

In that horror film he played Father Gabriel Amorth, the Vatican's leading exorcist and put in a solid performance.

The crazy thing is he made this 2024 release "The Exorcism" in 2019 and this supernatural horror has been sitting on the shelves gathering dust for five years.

What makes this film even more intriguing is Director Joshua John Miller (brother of actor Jason Patric) is the son of actor Jason Miller (Academy Award nominated actor and Pulitzer Prize winning playwright), who played Father Damien in 1973's "The Exorcist".

In fact, "Anthony Miller" is the star in a remake they are filming of "The Exorcist" with only the names changed to avoid law suits.

It's enough to make your head spin.

The inner film is being directed by Adam Goldberg as "Peter" and on all the scripts being studied by the actors the name for this movie is "The Georgetown Project".

So, it's no coincidence that the events for the original movie, the basis for this movie, happened in Georgetown, Washington DC.

I do love a good inside reference.

Crowe and Goldberg have been reunited after nearly 20 years since they filmed the marvellous "A Beautiful Mind" together.

In "The Exorcism", "Anthony" is slowly losing his beautiful mind to demonic possession that builds to a crescendo in the third act.

Meanwhile his on screen daughter Ryan Simpkins as "Lee" is freaking out that daddy is regressing to his old habits that put him in rehab while his wife, her mother, was dying of cancer.

The Catholic religion relies on guilt almost as much as demons do.

Watch out for: Sam Worthington as "Joe" who waits in the shadows and also David Hyde Pierce ("Frasier") as "Father Connor" a consultant on this fictional film and possibly an abuser from the deep, dark, troubled past of "Anthony".

This is no William Friedkin ("The Exorcist") script, but there's a lot to enjoy for horror fans in Crowes latest role, because he brings so much to the table and that voice rumbles your woofers and tweeters.

"The Exorcism doesn't suck rude body parts in hell.

This movie started out really great. A washed up, alcoholic actor gets a chance at a comeback role playing the priest in a remake of The Exorcist. But strange things are afoot. Is he still fighting his old demons in his mind, or is he fighting a real demon on set? Unfortunately, we know the answer as an opening prologue takes away that mystery before it's begun. But, let's see how it plays out.... Ooh boy, does it lose its way at the halfway point. Scenes are stitched together that make no sense, people behave as no normal person would, devastating injuries disappear, crazy behavior is blown off, a sudden fall to death - isn't? It's just ridiculous, and there's no comeuppance for the one awful character. It's like they stopped halfway through and just threw everything on the cutting room floor at the screen and then rolled the credits.

I went into this movie with an understanding that it was not going to be the best horror movie, but what ultimately was shown was a preposterous excuse for a horror film, their was so much the writers/director/producers could of done with this film that it was ultimately sad.

The very beginning of this movie was an 7/10 the first like 25/30 mins but when it got further it felt like it was being repetitive with how it was showing what was happening and plot wise, I will accredit one scene which was unexpected even for me a self titled horror noire film junkie. Russel Crowe did really good acting but I felt a let down from some of the other actors/actresses.

So if you want a mind numbing movie to watch while at the same time like Russel Crowe in his elder hear roles, you'll find this one - yes predictable but also fun.

If you're planning to watch a horror film, this is definitely not the one to choose. The production seems to have mistakenly categorized it under the horror genre instead of drama. Out of the 100-minute runtime, the film dedicates a mere 15 minutes to horror, while the remaining 85 minutes are purely drama. Watching this in theaters feels like a waste of time and money if you're expecting a spine-chilling horror experience. Given the minimal horror content, the price of this movie should be Rs 15, reflecting the 15 minutes that are worth watching.

The acting is commendable, but this only holds true if you approach the movie as a drama. The performances are solid and engaging in the context of a dramatic narrative, but if you're hoping for terrifying scenes and suspenseful moments, you'll be sorely disappointed. The film is painfully slow for a horror movie, lacking the tension and thrills that are characteristic of the genre.

One of the most significant drawbacks is its lack of relevance to the previous movie in the series. Fans who are looking for continuity and connections to the earlier installment will find none. This disconnection makes the movie feel disjointed and leaves viewers questioning its place in the series. It's almost as if the filmmakers decided to create a standalone drama but then labeled it as part of the horror series to attract a larger audience.

The storyline itself is unremarkable and fails to evoke any real fear or suspense. The plot meanders through various dramatic elements, focusing on character development and interpersonal relationships. While these aspects might be interesting in a different genre, they simply don't work in a movie that is supposed to be horror. The 15 minutes of horror that the film does offer are clichéd and predictable, lacking the originality and creativity needed to make a lasting impact.

Moreover, the pacing is incredibly slow, dragging through scenes that add little to the overall narrative. This slow pacing is a significant detriment in a horror film, where timing and rhythm are crucial to building tension and maintaining the audience's engagement. Instead of feeling on the edge of their seats, viewers are likely to find themselves bored and restless, waiting for something, anything, to happen.

The film's setting and atmosphere also fail to contribute to a sense of fear or unease. The locations and cinematography are more suited to a drama, with warm lighting and intimate settings that don't lend themselves to creating a spooky or ominous mood. The music, too, is more melodramatic than menacing, further reinforcing the feeling that you're watching a drama rather than a horror film.

If you have no plans and nowhere else to go, and maybe if you have some time to waste, then perhaps you might consider watching it. But even in that case, it would be with the understanding that you're not going to experience a traditional horror film. For those who value their time and are looking for a genuine horror experience, it's best to spend your valuable time elsewhere. There are plenty of other films that deliver true horror and are worth watching.

In conclusion, this film is a disappointment for horror enthusiasts. Its misclassification, slow pace, and lack of relevance to its predecessor make it a poor choice for a horror movie night. The drama elements might be appreciated by some, but they don't belong in a film marketed as horror. Save your time and money for a film that truly delivers on its promise of thrills and scares. This one, unfortunately, does not.

This is an unholy mess. It muddles along, directionless. This is supposed to entertain? It's a navel gazing disaster. Russell Crowe is just not convincing. Some reasonable acting from others, but nothing to write home about. I'm happy I didn't pay to see this, but I won't get my time back.

This is not a horror film, it's barely a psychological thriller. Crowe is better than this. Sam Worthington....isn't he an A List actor? No idea why he's in this chaos. There isn't much more to say, this film has crashed and burned at the box office for good reason - sorry if that is a spoiler. I need a drink after this desert of melancholy 😩.

I really enjoyed the beginning of the movie. In fact the first 3/4 the movie was brilliant and very original. Absolutely brilliant writing, directing, fantastic acting and a great premise. It built the character is very well and it really was edge of your seat stuff. The suspense was gradually building and I was excited to see what was going to happen. However, suddenly, around 3/4 through, everything changed. The whole feel of the movie completely changed. It suddenly because very confusing. It reminded me of the difference between the first and second poltergeist movies compared to the third poltergeist movie which was completely different in a bad way. The movie went from being brilliant to just kind of... mehh... There's no explanation for this. It feels as if there was a massive chunk taken out of the film and left on the cutting room floor or something? It's like it suddenly lost its way and then they gave up on the movie? Russell Crowe was brilliant throughout the movie and all of the actors were great throughout the movie to be honest. But the movie seems to just lose its way suddenly at around 3/4 of the way through. Odd because prior to the movie had been absolutely brilliant. Either way, I enjoyed it, especially the tormented character that Russell Crowe played extremely well , but I just wish it didn't lose it's way and I don't really understand why it did..

The Exorcism

An embarrassment of epic proportions, The Exorcism is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. A movie that had the potential to tackle issues of addiction, depression and recovery, in a setting of Catholic demonology missed the mark at every turn. By the end of the movie, you will leave as baffled as I at what I had just endured.

The sorry excuse for a plot begins with promise. An actor who lost his way in drugs and alcohol during his wife's sickness and death is trying to make a come back. His daughter, who is also grieving, is sent home from school for vandalism, as justified as it is. Then it goes off the rails. At first I thought it would be a metaphor for madness, but no, the stupidity that ensues is portrayed literally but with no explanation. There is no backstory of the horror element. The religious language and behavior are 100% wrong, which makes no sense in a world a simple google search would fix it. I should have known it would be terrible when a cell phone falls 4 stories and is undamaged, but a man breaks his own spine and nobody calls 911.

Russell Crowe, who clearly lost a bet, actually does a pretty good job with the drivel he's given. He's scary as he loses his way, but nobody cares. There is absolutely no context of any kind. Scene transitions don't make sense. Behavior of the characters make no sense. I feel like I was the one descending into madness.

The soundtrack was painful to listen to. I don't need to hear church bells while the actors embarrass themselves screaming out fake rituals and Latin.

Avoid this movie at all costs. I saw it with another horror movie fan, and we both looked at each other in shock at how bad this movie was.

So firstly may i address all the negative reviews here, most of them saying it was not a horror, no big horror scenes... sorry but anyone with an ounce of intelligence will read the genre, yes it does say horror, but also thriller and phycological horror.

I really liked this film a lot, it was not full of bloody scenes but if you want that go re watch the Saw films. I'm into my films, i watch around 20 films a week as TV is just rubbish.

Russell Crow is a great actor and backed up by a great actress in Ryan Simkins it was interesting, and really worked. The film was well made, not too long nor too short.

Many people who leave reviews on here just don't get the bigger picture, always judging movies by similar movies or the books written. I always take each film on its own merit, even if its a copy/remake of another film. Once you do this you'll judge a film on its own standing and find it more enjoyable.

Overall a great story, good acting and great composition.

"The Exorcism," a 2024 supernatural horror film, presents a haunting narrative of a troubled actor, Anthony Miller, portrayed by Russell Crowe, whose psyche unravels on the set of a horror movie. His daughter Lee, embodied by Ryan Simpkins, is caught between fearing his relapse into past addictions and grappling with the possibility of a darker, more supernatural influence. Directed by Joshua John Miller and penned by Miller alongside M. A. Fortin, the movie also boasts performances by Sam Worthington, Chloe Bailey, Adam Goldberg, Adrian Pasdar, and David Hyde Pierce.

Set against the backdrop of eerie sets and chilling soundscapes, "The Exorcism" kicks off with a stunning opening scene that promises a gripping horror spectacle. However, the film soon settles into a slower pace that, while meticulously building the atmosphere, tends to test the patience of its audience. This gradual buildup leads to a crescendo in the final quarter, where the horror intensifies and delivers a series of high-stakes, horrific moments that spike the adrenaline.

While the film features strong performances across its key cast, the slow development through the majority of its runtime might disconnect viewers from fully engaging with the characters' plights. Russell Crowe, whose presence was a significant draw for many, delivers a nuanced performance that, despite the script's pacing issues, showcases his ability to capture the complexity of his character's turmoil.

Produced by Miramax and Outerbanks Entertainment, and distributed by Vertical, "The Exorcism" excels in production value, with noteworthy contributions from its cinematography and sound editing departments. These elements combine to craft a visually and aurally disturbing experience that aligns well with the genre's expectations.

Overall, "The Exorcism" is a film that might cater more effectively to die-hard horror enthusiasts who appreciate a slow build-up to a terrifying payoff. Despite its pacing challenges, the film concludes with a flourish of horror sequences that are both stunning and satisfying. For those drawn by Russell Crowe's star power, his performance is compelling, even if the storyline may leave some viewers wanting.

Rating: 2.75 out of 5 - While "The Exorcism" offers a classic supernatural thrill with a powerful ending, its slow pace might not resonate with all, making it a selective recommendation for those with the patience for its narrative style.

Going all-out meta on the "film about an exorcism" genre I just didn't get this and neither did the audience I watched it with. Well acted, I suppose, and Sam Worthington was not quite up to his standard film wallpaper contribution. Frankly not scary and ultimately terribly boring. The direction and settings did kind of bring the 70s exploitation vibe to mind but when Ti West is churning out much better films I wonder why this was green-lightef. Brings nothing new, other than the LGBT characters survive, and sets the low bar for films this summer. Not even so bad it's a guilty pleasure, watch whenever it hits Netflix so you don't feel guilty when you stop it to watch something else. Please Russel, maybe try a sci-fi movie next to keep you away from the dog collars?

I could have bought an enema for the price of renting this movie and it would have been less painful and taken up far less of my life.

Russell Crowe must be really hard up to act in something like this movie.

The plot was laughable and juvenile. The cinematography was erratic. The storyline was so fragmented. The Director used so many cliche gags: jump scares, incomplete memory flashes, weird focusing, overuse of flickering lights... and the list goes on. I'm still not sure exactly what the movie was about or how it ended. Like, there was an ending, but it was so disconnected and melodramatic.

Watch it if you want, but I wish I had read a review like this before I wasted my time/money.

The Exorcism: A Descent into Cinematic Purgatory.

Russell Crowe deserves better. And so do you. "The Exorcism" is a soul-crushing experience, not in a good, demonic way, but in a way that leaves you feeling like you've just spent two hours trapped in a damp basement with a flickering light bulb.

The plot? It's about as fresh as last week's exorcism movie. Crowe plays a washed-up actor (typecasting much?) who takes a role in a cursed film about, shocker, an exorcism. Originality award goes to... someone else. The possession is a snoozefest, relying on tired tropes and Crowe sleepwalking through pea soup-thick makeup. The talented supporting cast suffers a similar fate, their characters as one-dimensional as a possessed child's drawing.

The only scares you'll experience are from checking your watch and realizing you're still stuck in this cinematic purgatory. The film starts with a glimmer of hope, hinting at a clever self-aware angle. But just like a flickering candle in a demonic wind, that spark is extinguished quicker than you can say "The Exorcist" (the good one, not this pale imitation).

Instead of chills, you'll get eye rolls at the predictable jump scares and forced religious symbolism. The pacing is slower than a possessed snail on valium, and the plot twists are about as surprising as finding out the priest wears a white collar.

Do yourself a favor. Skip the popcorn and the exorcism. Watch paint dry, listen to your dentist explain root canals, heck, even stare at a wall for two hours. It will be a more thrilling and terrifying experience than subjecting yourself to this cinematic dumpster fire.