L'Exorciste du Vatican

Au début, L’Exorciste du Vatican divertit avec son personnage d’un prêtre non conventionnel et rebelle, incarné de manière intéressante par un grand Russell Crowe. Mais par la suite, le film divertit d’autant moins qu’il se livre dans son dernier tiers à un amalgame de genre sans queue ni tête, qui est plus ridicule qu’effrayant ou impressionnant de quelque manière que ce soit. La meilleure scène, qui constitue le point culminant de la partie où l’intrigue se développe encore et reste regardable, se trouve quelque part au milieu du film. Du cinéma grand public avec un casting exceptionnel, mais dans le contexte du genre, cent fois plus inutile que certains délices cinématographiques (X, Pearl) qui ne passent même pas dans les salles au niveau local. (15/04/2023)

Russell Crowe, in his current chubby state, is already taking every stupid thing he can get his hands on. And yet, I liked the first half enough, as long as Russell is brimming with charisma and wit, and there's no shortage of some fine visual ideas. But as the minutes tick by, it gets sillier and more generic, and the final duel between the two priests, with bodies flying through the air, flames whipping and bloody women climbing out of iron maidens, looks like some kind of Mel Brooks parody. There's an art to fucking it up like that. Thanks for Franco Nero, I haven't seen him in anything in a long time. (24/10/2023)

Congratulations to the filmmakers for finding a meaningful reason to make the thousandth exorcism horror film with the potential for epic expansion into sequels. However, I won’t congratulate them for not being scared of their own idea, and without flinching, follow a template we’ve seen a thousand times before. A template entertaining and well executed enough to be worth watching, but a template nonetheless. Russell Crowe is very good, some of the visual effects and the generic demonic voice not so. (02/05/2023)

The best exorcism movie since The Exorcism of Emily Rose? Quite possibly. There have been a lot of exorcism movies over the years, and most of them are more miss than hit, there's just not much place for invention. The Pope’s Exorcist takes familiar horror clichés, but it has two big assets that make it stand out: the excellent Russell Crowe, who delivers a phenomenal performance (a horror film based on a well written and acted lead??), and the film as a whole looks perfect too. The A-list production is evident, and it's been a long time since a horror film has been this well made. In particular, it’s missing all the modern trends and elements, it's proper, dark and old-school like straight out of the 90s, but with great technical execution. Even the opening exorcism scene makes original use of a pig for possession and sets up the whole film nicely. I would have appreciated it more if Russell Crowe went from case to case (if he had exorcised maybe six people during the movie, I wouldn't hesitate with a full rating, that would have been a blast), but even the case of the little boy was interesting enough. The insults of the possessed boy definitely brings to mind the iconic The Exorcist. It's not very scary, there's no jump-scares and there aren't many scary scenes either, but the atmosphere works solidly most of the time and a couple of sequences have the right drive thanks to the great music. Russell Crowe even says some funny wisecracks at times and I wouldn't be mad if he returned as the exorcist again, the role really suited him. The underground finale is on an epic scale with one decent gore scene (thank God it's not PG-13, but I expected more gore from Julius Avery after Overlord), and I liked the incorporation of the Spanish Inquisition and the mythology surrounding the central Demon – King Asmodeus of Hell. Along with Scream VI, there hasn't been a better mainstream horror film, and anyone who had the misfortune of seeing Pray for the Devil in the cinema should fix their appetite with this. Horror week in the cinema has begun, followed by Renfield and Evil Dead Rise, now that's a dose of horror in the vein! 75% (18/04/2023)

Russell Crowe s’est apparemment lassé des rôles conventionnels. Son Jekyll/Hyde d’il y a quelques années ne lui a pas réussi dans le naufrage du Dark Universe et il s’est donc débarrassé de ses envies surambitieuses en jouant dans L'Exorciste du Vatican. Et c’est tout à son honneur, car il est la seule raison pour laquelle ce film routinier, stéréotypé, sans suspense ni idées créatives et dépourvu de toute ambiance horrifique vaut la peine d’être vu. De toute évidence, il s'amuse énormément avec ce rôle inhabituel, l'agrémentant de petites touches et de son accent italien décalé, lequel vous plaira plutôt que ne vous agacera (ce qui est notamment aussi dû au fait qu’il est loin d’être le pire accent du film). Cela dit, tout le reste du vide qu’il y a autour de Crowe n’est qu’un film routinier par un réalisateur tout aussi routinier, à qui je concéderai juste le mérite de nous avoir épargné les jump scare sonores bruyants et exaspérants qui sont un tel fléau dans le genre actuellement. (05/04/2023)

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)