THE EXORCISM. Expelling the Demons of Conventions [REVIEW]

The problem with Joshua John Miller’s film is that it has no chance of success. There are two reasons for this – contrary to popular belief, it is not a sequel to The Pope’s Exorcist, and it is not entirely a horror film, although it contains horror elements. It is more of a (meta)phor, a truly unusual work that plays with conventions, offering a commentary on cinema while exploring the dysfunctional effects of addiction and the process of overcoming trauma. It’s no surprise that viewers and critics are not entirely pleased with it. However, I had a really good time. The Exorcism with Russell Crowe is something entirely different.

Unfortunately, it is not revolutionary because too many mistakes were made in the execution and storytelling. Nonetheless, the premise and meta-play were great. Miller made a dangerous dive and is sure to get hurt. Critics are tearing it apart, and early viewers as well. However, he found an admirer of such conceptual madness in me. Yes, there are many inconsistencies, some threads are too superficial, and many elements seem like rather flat comments on the mechanisms and myths surrounding such productions as The Omen or The Exorcist. This is somewhat the starting point of the film with Russell Crowe – we have a broken, old action movie star returning to acting after rehab and the loss of his wife. The actor gets a role in a major production revolving around the well-worn theme of possession. He is to play a priest-exorcist. And here, interesting, non-obvious things start to happen. We do not get clear answers to all the questions posed, and the blending of metaphysical and psychological elements is really conditional and ultimately left to the viewer’s interpretation. On one hand, there’s the cliché – Anthony dives deep into the role and eventually becomes possessed by a demon. A trope. On the other hand, it could all be the product of a mind exhausted by alcoholism and trauma, triggering a fatal memory of being molested by a priest in childhood. Where is the truth?

I choose the latter interpretation. Who knows? Maybe I am adding something to this production that it doesn’t possess. The scattered breadcrumbs (the whiskey drinking scene, the final scene) seem to steer me toward my understanding of The Exorcism. That’s why, for me, it’s an absolutely unconventional and borderline psychological horror film, where the setting, jump scares, and all those hackneyed tricks are just a cloak and veil to tell something more. Even in this aspect, it delivers quite a bit of fear (although I am aware that it won’t impress genre connoisseurs), but there are even more reflections on processing trauma, addiction, rebuilding a shattered family, and the relationship with his daughter. A more skilled director might have done it better, but the concept itself earns my approval.

I haven’t seen such an interesting conceptual matryoshka and such an imaginative horror film in a long time, where so much didn’t work, yet so much did. It’s a paradox. It’s a shame that most viewers will leave the cinema disappointed because, unfortunately, the film stood in the middle in some elements and ultimately didn’t surpass itself. It has flaws – the pace is uneven, some threads are treated neglectfully, and the editing stumbles at times. However, the whole is much deeper than it seems, gripping the viewer constantly, playing with the convention while simultaneously escaping it. Crowe is, for me, outstanding – exactly as tired, beaten by life, and bloated as he should be. In those moments when intensity and charisma are needed, he delivers them. It’s not the most brilliant, charisma-filled role of his life, but it was meant to be this way to capture the commentary I perceived.