‘The Pope’s Exorcist’ is the newest film by Julius Avery (‘Overlord,’ ‘Samaratin’). Unfortunately, I haven’t seen anything from Avery, and the trailers and concept of the movie certainly didn’t do anything to excite me. However, marketing can be deceiving these days in terms of a movie’s quality. After ‘Barbarian’ (2022), which infamously had bad marketing but turned out to be excellent, I try to go into these horror movies with an open mind. To my disappointment, the film met my expectations of being a by-the-numbers and uninspiring horror film.
The film follows the real-life Priest, Gabriele Amorth (Russel Crowe), who was once the Vatican’s chief exorcist. He is tasked by the Pope (Franco Nero) to help out a young boy named Henry (Peter DeSouza-Feighoney), who’s presumed to be possessed by a demon. Amorth meets up with an inexperienced Priest, Father Esquibel (Daniel Zovatto), to partner up and excise the demon while battling their inner demons. While that is a short plot synopsis for the film, it’s unfortunate that there isn’t much depth beyond that. The movie is simply about a pair of exorcists trying to help this young boy and his family rid themselves of this demon.
The first obvious inspiration for the movie is ‘The Exorcist (1973), as many scenes feel eerily similar and even ripped from the movie itself. But it also felt like the movie borrowed a bit from The Conjuring Films by James Wan. The film starts with Amorth questioning a demon who claims to be Satan himself and excises the spirit into a Pig, which later explodes (If the movie retained this level of ridiculousness throughout, it could’ve been more fun). We transition into regular family life before one of the children gets possessed. This is practically the formula for a Conjuring movie, and that’s not to knock those films, as they’re some of my favorite modern horror movies. The reason why ‘The Pope’s Exorcist’ fails in this formula is a simple fact that the family is sorely underdeveloped.
We’re told through exposition that the Father of the family passed away, and the little boy, Henry, hasn’t spoken for a year since the incident. Beyond that, the family has no other depth or likeability, which makes it hard to stay invested in their conflict. Amorth is also not very interesting as he explains his personality when talking to some bishops at the film’s beginning. Some backstory is delved into later in the movie, which shows survivors in guilt in war and some responsibility over a woman he failed to save. This doesn’t work well because it doesn’t feel like it ties into the plot that much. The backstory that does tie into the film feels relatively obvious with where it’s going as well since we’re dealing with a Priest with the guilt of not being able to save people who are now in a situation where he can save a little boy. It’s something the audience has seen countless times.
Horror movies taking inspiration from classics are nothing new either and are not necessarily bad. As mentioned before, The Conjuring films have a specific formula. However, they still work well due to the well-directed horror scenes, excellent established family dynamics, and well-fleshed-out protagonists. Since the characters aren’t well-developed, how well-directed are the horror scenes?
Unfortunately, these are pretty uninspired as well. I would hardly call this a horror movie, as there are no attempts at actual scares and tension-building. The ones that are in the movie feel lazy and redundant.
There are some incredible things to mention, though. First, the cinematography is quite good, creating a moody atmosphere that can feel pretty immersive. Visually, it is rarely dull to look at. The on-screen performances of the actors are also pretty good, with a couple of standouts.
Peter DeSouza-Feighoney (who plays Henry) does a great job playing this demon that has possessed a little boy. The young actor can emote so much with his face and convinces me that something sinister has taken over him; he is pretty menacing every time he is on screen. Russell Crowe does something interesting in the movie that not everyone will love, but fortunately, it worked for me. Crowe plays Amorth with a campy-comedic element, which makes him likable despite the little character depth. He’s a hilarious guy that tells a lot of jokes, and visually, there is a comedic element to him with simple shots of him riding a tiny Vespa around Italy. The Italian accent that Crowe puts on is so thick, and something about it makes the character more wholesome, comedic, and light-hearted.
The movie works better if you treat it as a comedy. A couple of moments truly feel like some of the best campy parts of Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead franchise. There are visual elements that feel goofy to look at it, and it’s intentional humor. Unfortunately, the film doesn’t lean into this comedic element nearly enough, which paints the film as something pretty generic and derivative.
2.5/5
‘The Pope’s Exorcist’ isn’t the worst horror movie ever, and it has some value. The film teases future sequels, and you might be surprised to read that I’m not against that. The dynamic between Amorth and Esquibel was good enough that I wouldn’t mind seeing more with an improved story and direction. The film’s flaws seep through when it takes too much inspiration from other horror movies and strays away from the campy elements. The characters are too undeveloped to stay invested in, making the film feel boring. Still, the movie isn’t a waste of time as it has a short run time of one hour and forty-three minutes. If the premise intrigues you, and you’re a fan of The Exorcist, The Conjuring, and Evil Dead, then there is some fun to be had, but only when this movie hits streaming.
‘The Pope’s Exorcist’ is in theaters now.
Leave a Comment