:

Two priests, one in crisis with his faith and the other confronting a turbulent past, must overcome their differences to perform a risky exorcism.

On multiple occasions, co-writer/director David Midell (who penned the screenplay alongside Enrico Natale) lets viewers know that  is based on the most thoroughly documented case in exorcism history. Before the ending credits, it goes one step further, noting that the majority of exorcism movies have drawn inspiration from Father Joseph Steiger’s (Dan Stevens) noted observations. To be clear, this film doesn’t have an original or innovative bone in its body, but there is something infuriatingly bold about a movie running through the same tired clichés of the most oversaturated sub-genre, subsequently throwing up a graphic when it’s all over as if decades of those movies should be handwaved away and forgotten about because, hey, this is the one that’s based on that case.

Aside from that maddening tidbit, the film will also go down as noteworthy (which is not necessarily a compliment) for one thing: it inexplicably stars Al Pacino as Father Theophilus Riesinger, the man of the cloth with unwavering faith in God to cast out the demon and break free a human vessel from possession. That means Father Joseph Steiger, who has recently and tragically lost his brother, is the one undergoing a crisis of faith. Yes, it’s essentially the same plot as the original , except that it takes place in 1928 (with little emphasis on this) and is allegedly based on actual events. No one needs the ending on-screen graphic to make this clear, but the filmmakers drive it home anyway. The most creative thing about is the lengths and loopholes it goes through to rip off that masterpiece.

Nevertheless, Father Theophilus Riesinger breaks the news to Father Joseph Steiger that they will be performing an exorcism on young Emma Schmidt (Abigail Cowen), a girl who has started hissing in religious spaces and has been showing signs of self-harm. She has a troubled home life, which brings into question the legitimacy of this possession and whether or not it is strictly psychological and should be a medical case. Naturally, Father Theophilus Riesinger asserts that demonic possession is in play, with Father Joseph Steiger philosophically battling him on this point for the duration of the running time. The film even has the audacity to mention that, after all this, it’s still unknown whether this was a case of possession or a medical condition, all while wildly exaggerating these events.

To the credit of Dan Stevens and Al Pacino, they are giving solid performances. However, they are let down by abysmally directed scenes, featuring dim lighting and shaky camera zooms that move back and forth, making one feel as if they are watching a bootleg version recorded in a theater. Structurally, the film is tedious to get through, primarily consisting of six rituals that amount to Al Pacino reciting verses from the Bible while the usual demonic possession shenanigans occur.

What might be the worst offense is that the poor, tortured Emma is given thin characterization and little to work with on the horror front. Anything that is revealed about her typically comes from the perspective of Father Theophilus Riesinger, further diminishing her as a character. There are also some nuns on hand (Ashley Greene) and a Mother Superior (Patricia Heaton), all of whom aren’t given anything to work with.

doesn’t even have the good sense to make this guilty pleasure entertainment by having Al Pacino ham it up, casting out demons in full “HOO-AHH Dunkachino” mode. The filmmakers are playing this straight as if they are treading uncharted territory, begging us to wonder what possessed them to think anything about this film was a good idea.

– Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★