User Reviews

In 1973, William Friedkin directed what is often referred to as the scariest film of all time: The Exorcist. Adapted from his novel itself based upon a real case by William Peter Blatty, The Exorcist has become a touchstone of the genre, and the film all later filmed exorcisms is compared against.Many sequels and two prequels followed*, but none have reached the cultural ziegtgeist as well as the original feature. It was also the favorite film from Father Gabriele Amorth, the subject of this 2018 documentary by Friedkin. Who is Father Amorth and why does it matter The Exorcist is his top film? He was only the Exorcist in Chief for the Vatican from 1985 until his death in 2016, reported to have performed over ten thousand exorcisms. After meeting Friedkin for a magazine article, Amorth was able to secure permission from the Vatican to be the first to film a Catholic exorcism. Who wouldn’t want to see a “real” exorcism filmed by the director of the most famous filmed one? The ultimate result is of interest, but slight. Clocking in at only 68 minutes, Friedkin keeps the documentary as lean and direct as he can with just enough fluff to get to nearly feature length. Why is the documentary so short? For all of the interest related to filming a real exorcism, the event itself doesn’t have much to show. One would hope most viewers wouldn’t expect anything like a sensonation film exorcism, but even with expectations low, the event is underwhelming. Friedkin choses to show about ten minutes; this ten minutes is the titular priest reading from a laminated card some Latin (crossing the line in the **** sand her and reading it aloud), while the subject (now in her ninth attempt) grumbles in a different register than her speaking voice. This voice is disconcerning, true, but the single trick of the possession. Thus, Friedkin is stuck with building up to and then discussing the lackluster central event. Thus, he spends a while at the opening recounting the background from the original film and the aftermath in grilling scientists and religious figures about the event. Grilling might be too tough a word, film fans know Friedkin is often gruff and direct at all points - it’s how he is, but to those watching without knowing that may see a pushy Friedkin demanding answers where there is really just conjecture on all ends. I’ve neglected questioning the religious background, whether one believes or not; that’s not for me to get into - and Friedkin touches into this in the second half as it is. That said, along the way we do get to see Father Amorth, who comes off as friendly and sincere; perhaps more of a focus on him and his history could have made a stronger documentary. With such a short length, the documentary feels underdone, but anything else would be just fluff - which could be worse. The basis of the documentary is of interest although the central event doesn’t have much to offer. As it is presented, The Devil and Father Amorth would be a great supplementary feature on the next of the endless releases of the Exorcist on home media, but on it’s own is underwhelming. *I honestly believe I like Exorcist III (written and directed by Blatty from his book Legion) better on a personal level, but that’s no remark against the effectiveness of the technically better original. The less we speak of the first sequel or the two versions of the prequel the better. I’ve not seen the television show, but I’ve heard great things.

A rather simplistic curiosity that I can hardly say was worth the time invested because in some way it never stops feeling like a small documentary that would have been simply an extra in some home edition of The Exorcist