Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Aubrey Hackett While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

spyroschas I'm an atheist and i wached it just to see how they try to convince the ignorants that the devil exists...this is the worst attempt.the "voice" is ridiculous.the sound effect made laugh...and laugh...and laugh.. avoid it.its for idiots only.

kankrillo-50277 What a fraud. This is the worst thing I've ever seen. It's badly done. All based in a poor voice effect. Only Ignorant people would say this is real.

dsmcg OK, call me a skeptic, but if I taped someone speaking in dual voiced slightly delayed harmonics, that would be the key to the entire project right there. The title would be, Possession proof via audio recording of the voice of Satan! Instead, it goes without discussion or further interest. This could mean one thing; it's a fake. (It sounds exactly like the Satan voice you can buy with vocal effect units at any music store.) Why would he bury the lead? It serves one purpose; keep the believers believing, And that is all the audience you need when you are a charlatan. Meanwhile, those who know a bit about audio or are skeptics will immediately wonder what happened? How did that get skipped over? This is a much more crucial mystery because it needs to be solved before you can take the next step. Friedkin could have not only eliminated this question but sold the whole project on it! But he did not. Again, ask yourself why? The non-religious testimony is dismissive. The religious commenters are useless in this context of legitimizing. The whole thing is poorly made and embarrassing as a project for the director. Apologist involved are on record saying they saw early version pre-post and the voice was there. But would you really expect a charlatan to show it before he put the effect on. Again, extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. In this day and age, trusting a video tape is just not smart. The woman first found she had a problem during a mass and it coincidentally gets worse during an exorcism. This is presented as good evidence along with her brothers testimony. To wrap up he retells a story where he forgot to bring his camera... The voice now has additional lower pitched voices in addition to the already suspiciously altered voice to really drive it home, again without pointing out how unbelievably important that would be.

Vlad_Imirivan In this age of media saturation, there can't be many human activities that have yet to be captured on film or videotape.According to William Friedkin, however, his brief, mostly straightforward documentary includes just such a novelty: the first authorized footage of a Catholic exorcism.That claim will serve as a selling point for some, a red flag for others. Safe to say, this is unsettling fare ill-suited to the very young or the faint of heart.Friedkin, director of 1973's "The Exorcist," follows the case of an Italian woman who was ministered to by Pauline Father Gabriele Amorth, chief exorcist of the Diocese of Rome from 1986 until his death in 2016 at 91.There's an intrusive feeling to the portion of the movie in which Friedkin records Father Amorth's ninth attempt to rid this lady of her demons. The effect might be compared to that of watching a doctor treat a suffering patient.Yet this glimpse into the world of absolute darkness seems, for the most part, artistically -- or perhaps it would be better to say journalistically -- justified. And it will certainly fascinate at least some viewers.Friedkin surrounds this central encounter with a curious blend of other items. He starts with a look back at William Peter Blatty's fact-based 1971 novel, the source of his famous feature, and the situation that inspired it. He adds interviews with, among others, Auxiliary Bishop Robert E. Barron of Los Angeles, open-minded neurosurgeons and more insistently materialist psychiatrists.He also includes an incomplete portrait of Father Amorth that asserts but does not explore the priest's sanctity. This will be a source of disappointment for Catholics in the audience since the jaunty, compassionate clergyman -- whose sense of humor extended to constant mockery of the Evil One -- appears to warrant a more penetrating study of his personality and work.More attention devoted to Father Amorth, moreover, would have helped to offset the inevitable grimness of the rite at the heart of the proceedings.At times, Friedkin appears slightly breathless with enthusiasm for his own material, and Christopher Rouse's churning score also hints at sensationalism. But overall, the tone is respectful and sober-minded.