El Diablo y el Padre Amorth

It's interesting to see people giving this a one star rating based on their own personal belief. It's really nice if you're an atheist or Christian but setting that aside it's a competent documentary. Seemed pretty open minded to me. Friedkin's stand point seemed to be he felt there was something to it but wasn't 100% convinced. The music was a bit intrusive and framing during a couple of his monologues seemed careless. I don't know or care if extra processing was done on her voice. Other than those things it was interesting and helmed by an intelligent, rational guy. Giving it a 1 or even a 10 seems like a personal issue with the religious aspect rather than standing back and viewing objectively.

Greetings again from the darkness. In 1971, William Friedkin directed one of my all-time favorite films, THE FRENCH CONNECTION. He won the Oscar for Best Director. But of course that's not the movie which entrenched him as a cinematic legend. Two years later he directed THE EXORCIST, a film that, 45 years later, still regularly appears at or near the top of most "Best Horror film" lists.

For most of his adult life (he's now in his 80's), Mr. Friedkin has been associated with exorcisms, and he kicks off this documentary by confessing that he will be attending his first ever actual exorcism ... and will be filming the ceremony. It's a ritual very few of us have ever witnessed, and we learn that more than 500,000 Italians seek exorcisms from a priest each year. The director seems very anxious to take us along on his journey.

We get interviews and footage from multiple associated folks: Jeffrey Burton Russell, author of "The Prince of Darkness" and other satanic novels; William Peter Blatty, author of "The Exorcist"; a young Los Angeles priest who simultaneously expresses skepticism while stating he wouldn't want to get that close to the devil; and a couple of Neurosurgeons and some Psychiatrists. There are also interviews with a brother and sister recalling her experience of having a liberating exorcism performed on her, and the titular Father Gabriele Amorth - one of the most beloved figures in the Catholic Church. He was Head Exorcist for the Diocese of Rome for more than 30 years.

Whether the movie works for you or not (whether you believe it's real) likely depends on the interview we neither see nor hear. Mr. Friedkin's build up is to the exorcism he attends as Father Amorth performs the 9th exorcism on 'Cristina'. It's May 1, 2016 and there are perhaps 12-15 people in the room, including Cristina's parents and boyfriend. She has struggled with "demonic possession" for years, and the footage is quite startling - especially the audio of the guttural voice from such an innocent looking lady. It's also Father Amorth's 91st birthday and he literally thumbs his nose at the devil. It's after this ceremony where Friedkin claims he was to interview Cristina in a local church. Inexplicably, he doesn't have his camera, so we only hear him tell of the horrific events.

Mr. Friedkin directs the film (co-written with noted film critic Mark Kermode) and also acts as our guide through the rituals and beliefs associated with exorcisms. There is a bit of a "Dateline" vibe to the production, though it's a bit surreal to hear Father Amorth proclaim to the evil spirits, "You are banned forever". As has been the tradition for years, religion and science are at odds with the subject. Neurosurgeons label it "delirium", while Psychiatrists call it "Disassociate Trance Disorder". Is it merely a placebo effect caused by religious beliefs, or does Satan exist? Perhaps author Jeffrey Burton Russell says it best: "stay away from this stuff".

The voice effect is literally the same one used for the zombies mode in Call Of Duty. How exactly did they expect anyone to think this is authentic? This is not a documentary, it is a blatant lie.

The recorded exorcism itself is very interesting, yet also kind of boring. I liked hearing interpretations of the psychiatrists and neuroscientists and the archbishop. The priest himself and the "possessed" woman's family members (as well as the other interview subjects who said they'd previously been possessed and freed) were less reliable sources since they had so much emotional investment, religious fervor and fear, and strict viewpoints that it didn't really leave anything open for discussion. The movie opens with the stat that 500,000 Italians a year seek out exorcism. That's a lot of people who believe they have the devil inside them, but it's also worth noting that about 75% of the country is Catholic. In other words, an exceptionally religious country is also exceptionally "possessed" ... or it might be more accurate to say that they are afraid they are possessed and more likely seek out spiritual solutions for their problems.

For the end sequence, the director resorted to a recap of a final event using creepy narration, "scary" stock footage, dark music, and stingers to try to create a scary scene, but the whole time I was just wondering why he didn't record it (since that's the whole reason he was there) while also feeling like I couldn't really take his word after watching the footage of the actual exorcism and it being nothing like this final "terrifying" event he later describes but doesn't let us view.

Bottom line. The "possessed" woman was definitely in distress, but the unanswered question is: What is the root of her distress and what is the solution? Very interesting topic, okay execution. How you feel about it will partially depend on how you feel about possession going into it.

The Exorcist is still considered (rightfully) as one of the best horror movies of all time. This documentary goes beyond that, with the original director giving us some insights. Where the story originated, original shooting location, chracters versus their real life inspired ... humans/demons.

All that is well and good, but unfortunately even with a short running time, it does feel long at times. Especially during the "real" exorcism. It's nice to get a behind the scenes look, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion really. Although I can see that some may feel it has more weight, because it is "real". Why do I use "" when I write real? Because even the documentary, tries to pick it apart, with experts (doctors) and priests talking about it.

And even their arguments and their insight is nothing really new, at least not that much new things. I like Friedkin, he is a great director, so he does get the most of certain situations (though his insistance on asking the same question over and over again to a priest, about his spiritual "power" does feel a bit long and annoying), overall the documentary could have been shorter though. I do hope he makes more feature films - they tend to be really great