I went into The Pope’s Exorcist with barely any expectations. All I knew about it was that Russell Crowe was playing the priest Gabriele Amorth, who was a real person known in particular for two things: performing exorcisms for the Vatican and riding Vespa scooters. Despite the fact that he was frequently called to do the unpleasant task of performing exorcisms, Amorth was a rather silly guy, and Russell Crowe definitely takes this to heart while portraying him. It’s a shame the rest of the movie isn’t much fun or new.

Pros

Russell Crowe’s performance brings life and energy to the film
Less than two hours

Cons

Supposed to be in the 1980’s but does not look it at all
Pretty standard exorcism movie
Acting of other cast members isn’t great
Makeup effects are inconsistent
Goofy attempt at building a franchise

Plot & Thoughts

Julia (Alex Essoe) and her children Amy (Laurel Marsden) and Henry (Peter DeSouza-Feighoney) have managed to procure a property for themselves that happens to be a castle in Spain—how they do this I don’t really remember, and it’s clearly Ireland, but whatever. She’s having the castle restored, and wouldn’t you know it, there’s something old and evil hidden underneath the layers of stone—it’s a very similar set up to a recent horror movie I watched. Whether or not this evil is awakened by the construction is irrelevant, because it takes very little time before Henry wakes up possessed by a demon. The movie works quickly to then get Gabriele Amorth (Russell Crowe) away from the drama and politics of the Vatican after a failed exorcism, as he is quickly ushered into the castle to help the less-experienced priest, Father Esquibel (Daniel Zovatto), exorcise Henry. From there, it’s your typical exorcism movie in which spooky stuff happens and the religious men need to face their demons, both figuratively and literally.

The Pope’s Exorcist is a completely forgettable film in how by-the-numbers it is. I watched it less than 12 hours prior to writing this, and I have already forgotten the first third of the film and details as to how the family came to be living in the Irish Spanish castle. It’s not the most important detail, as we just need a reason for a kid to be possessed and for there to be a location with some ancient evil within, but I just couldn’t be bothered to remember or care why this is all happening. After all, if you haven’t watched The Exorcist a dozen times, would you remember how Regan got possessed by Pazuzu in the first place? That’s not really important to the overall experience.

There are a few things that stand out about the film that are worth mentioning. One particular detail—and this is nitpicky—but The Pope’s Exorcist is yet another modern movie that is too lazy to properly present its characters and tone in the time period in which everything is taking place. It’s supposed to be 1987, yet the fashion and hairstyles of the family members are very 2023. Why isn’t the hair on the women exploding out into space from hazardous products? Why aren’t they wearing colorful outfits with shoulder pads and fanny packs? None of the kids every say any lines that would be ‘totally radical’ or anything to make you feel like it’s the 80’s. Did filmmakers just stop caring about these sorts of things?

Another detail worth mentioning is the quality of acting. There’s a rather large cast in this film with some hits and misses. I think Daniel Zovatto does a decent job as the rookie priest who has some issues in his past. I also think the young Peter DeSouza-Feighoney does okay—even though he overacts a bit—because he has a very peculiar face that works well for a possessed individual. The various other cardinals and side characters, however, are not the best acted. A lot of the dialogue and performances get melodramatic and silly. It would have taken me out of the movie if I wasn’t already distracted by the non-80’s style.

The saving grace of the film is Russell Crowe. He brings a fair amount of energy and charm to the role of Amorth. He speaks English with a convincing Italian accent throughout the film and also dips into Spanish, Latin, and Italian with a fluent pronunciation each time. You get the impression he’s having fun with the role, and he occasionally gives a bit of the gallows humor when some serious events transpire. However, one man cannot completely rescue a very standard and boring movie. If it weren’t for Crowe, I would have turned it off before the half-way point—so he did rescue it in that sense—but I still can’t even come close to recommending this movie unless it’s necessary viewing for a better sequel, which leads me to my last point.

In the final scene where some cheesy dialogue is delivered by Crowe and Zovatto as though they’re trying to set up a cinematic universe with these two characters. I’m not against watching a sequel, but they have to do one of two things:

Make a good, scary movie that is more consistent and accurately portrays its time period.
Turn up the cheese to maximum sharp-cheddar and make the goofiest exorcism film series of all time.

As long as they don’t make as many as the Amityville series…

TL;DR

There’s really not much to say about The Pope’s Exorcist. It’s a very rote entry in the exorcism sub-genre of horror. The only real redeeming quality is Russell Crowe’s performance, because he manages to bring a fair amount of quirky charm to the experience. It’s enough for me to be willing to see a scary or goofy sequel. Otherwise, there’s not much of a reason to watch.

Dagon Dogs Posts