Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Film Review: The Exorcism – SLUG Magazine

Published

on

Film Review: The Exorcism – SLUG Magazine

Film

The Exorcism
Director: Joshua John Miller
Miramax and Outer Banks Entertainment
In Theaters: 06.21

I have a theory that Nicolas Cage is appearing in real movies again because Hollywood made a deal with the devil, giving him Russell Crowe in exchange for Cage. It may sound implausible, but I challenge you to watch The Exorcism and not see some merit in the hypothesis.

Tony Miller (Russell Crowe, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind) is a washed-up star looking for a big comeback. Tony got a lot of bad press during a battle with alcoholism while his wife was in the hospital dying of cancer, and his fall from grace was a big one. When he lands a leading role in a horror film-a loose remake of The Exorcist called The Georgetown Project-he may have found the vessel he needs to get his career and his life back on track. He does feel a tad uncomfortable about the fact that he got offered the role after the actor who was originally cast was killed in a mysterious accident on set, but hey, a job is a job, right? As shooting on the film gets underway, Tony struggles to remember his lines, and his daughter, Lee (Ryan Simpkins, the Fear Street trilogy), who gets a job on set as a production assistant, notices strange aspects of his behavior, particularly at night, including muttering “Make way for the demon Moloch” in Latin. When Lee speaks to the film’s religious consultant, Father Conor (David Hyde Peirce, Frasier, The Perfect Host) he helpfully offers the following insight: “I wonder if what you’re describing points to some kind of stuff.” Lee begins to question whether her father’s rapid decline points to a relapse into old addictions or something more malevolent.

Advertisement

The Exorcism is co-written and directed by Joshua John Miller, son of the late playwright and actor Jason Miller, best remembered by cinephiles for playing Father Damien Karras in The Exorcist in 1973. This film is clearly inspired by the hype in the ‘70s involving the possibility that the productions of The Exorcist and The Omen were plagued by strange and unexplainable supernatural occurrences, and may have even been cursed. It’s a highly intriguing jumping off-point, and almost 50 minutes of the 95-minute runtime are genuinely compelling. The bulk is this is merely setting up a big third-act conclusion, however, and it’s a set-up for a payoff that never comes. The final third of The Exorcism is so rushed and slapdash that it’s clear that the studio took an “if this can’t be good, at least it can be short” approach to post-production, and it’s just a lot of rushed nonsense that doesn’t lead to any satisfactory ending or even a remotely involving climax. 

Crowe throws himself into his performance with gusto, and he’s so well cast as an actor who has fallen from grace due to a bad reputation that when the movie is on track, it’s enthralling to watch him. Sadly, he further he falls into his seeming possession, the less interesting the performance becomes, and by the end, I simply didn’t care. Simpkins is effective as Lee, and Hyde Peirce is such a delightful presence he’d almost make the film worth recommending if his character wasn’t given such a short shift. Adam Goldberg (Saving Private Ryan, Zodiac) has some memorable moments as Peter, the egotistical and abusive director of The Georgetown Project, but Sam Worthington (Avatar, The Debt) is given so little to do that one wonders if a big chunk of his performance ended up on the cutting room floor. Goldberg’s character pretentiously describes The Georgetown Project as “a psychological drama wrapped within in the skin of a horror movie,” and there’s a strong feeling that The Exorcism itself is going for something similar, along with an element of satire. The fact remains that whether the movie being released isn’t the one that Miller set out to make, or he simply wrote himself into a corner and couldn’t find a way out, it ends up failing on every level. By the end, it’s not scary, it’s not dramatic and it’s not clever. The Exorcism may never have had the potential for greatness, yet it certainly could have been much more than a major chore to finish watching. It ranks among the biggest duds of the year, and far from being a comeback for Crowe. The release of this film in the same year that his great classic, Gladiator, is getting a long-awaited sequel without him is a depressing embarrassment. –Patrick Gibbs

Read more film reviews:
Film Review: The Bikeriders
Film Review: Thelma

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

Published

on

‘Balaramana Dinagalu’ review: A restrained look at the gangster mind

In K M Chaitanya’s Aa Dinagalu (2007), actor Atul Kulkarni, playing gangster Agni Sreedhar, says man is the biggest weapon in the underworld. “The rest are just properties,” he adds. The yesteryear Kannada crime drama, based on the real incidents from a big chapter of the Bengaluru underworld, stood out for its understated storytelling.

In Balaramana Dinagalu, which has the skeleton of a sequel to Aa Dinagalu, weapons are seen in the first scene. As the film progresses, we encounter an arsenal of knives, razors, machetes, and guns — each an extension of the gangsters’ identities and an indispensable tool in their quest to remain feared and lethal. Chaitanya attempts to make the movie a mix of reality and entertaining tropes.

Balaramana Dinagalu (Kannada)

Director: K M Chaitanya

Cast: Vinod Prabhakar, Priya Anand, Atul Kulkarni, Ashish Vidyarthi, Ramesh Indira

Runtime: 151 minutes

Advertisement

Storyline: Balarama, an ordinary young man from a remote village in Karnataka, becomes a dreaded gangster who rules Bengaluru

The director has roped in the same cast, who played the dreaded gangster trio of Kotwal Ramachandra (essayed by Sharath Lohitashwa), Jayaraj (Ashish Vidyarthi), and Agni Sreedhar (Atul) in Aa Dinagalu. That’s what makes one instantly curious about Balaramana Dinagalu. The only difference in the latest movie from the previous one is the fictionalised names of the real dons. Jayaraj becomes Jayaram, Sreedhar is Shashidhar, and Muthappa Rai is called Monnappa Rai (played by Ramesh Indira).

Even if these characters are the big draw in the movie, the plot revolves around the journey of Balarama, a character with a small yet significant presence in Aa Dinagalu. Vinod Prabhakar’s portrayal of the titular role is the film’s biggest takeaway. He makes us feel for the character, and is quite impressive in the final portions of the movie, where Balarama struggles to break free from the underworld’s trap.

Balaramana Dinagalu is impressive when it reflects the psychology of a gangster. Jayaram is shown helping the needy while Balarama urges young boys to focus on education. It’s as if these men who commit heinous acts, have a heart as well. Shashidhar is often called “intellectual gangster”, as the film reflects how the underworld fears well-read men in the field. Politicians and policemen, the supposedly the protectors of people being part of the crime nexus, strengthen the movie’s world-building.

The film falters in its inability to rise above the plot’s predictability. Balarama’s journey is no different from the often-seen life of an innocent man from a small town who becomes a gangster owing to uncontrollable circumstances. I wish the film had delved a bit more into Balaram’s personality. Why does he not resist becoming a gangster? What dreams did he have when he moved to Bengaluru from a small town?

Advertisement

“My hands speak louder than my words,” says Balarama. This signals that he is someone who settles conflicts with fists rather than conversations. Despite this detail, Balaram’s entry into the underworld feels too sudden. The predictability strips the sheen away from the well-shot action sequences, as the result of every fight is known beforehand.

Chaitanya is careful not to glorify the act of violence. He wants to portray the negative effects of violence on the children in a family, as the movie ends with a hard-hitting frame. It’s impressive that the actor-director duo has delivered a non-hero-worshipping gangster saga.

That said, the movie could have benefited from a couple of gripping episodes. While it’s important not to romanticise the life of a gangster, there is no harm in delivering moments of peak tension, the biggest plus of the genre. 

The assassination of Jayaram, the impact of Kotwal’s elimination on the underworld, or the Sakleshpura incident involving Monnappa Rai, had the potential to offer edge-of-the-seat, high-stakes portions, but they are rushed. The love story is simple, but it lacks emotional intensity between the lead couple. Santhosh Narayanan’s dance numbers are forgettable (despite it being his forte) while his montage melodies are beautiful.

Balaramana Dinagalu adopts a restrained, almost clinical approach to the gangster genre. While that keeps it from glorifying violence, it also leaves the narrative feeling a touch too neat and emotionally muted.

Advertisement

Balaramana Dinagalu is currently running in theatres

Published – June 28, 2026 07:58 pm IST

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Published

on

A New Dawn Anime Film Review

Perhaps there’s a certain irony in a story about a fireworks factory mostly keeping away from explosive drama. Yoshitoshi Shinomiya‘s lowkey feature directorial debut A New Dawn is at the very least visually captivating, comprised of lush and rather hypnotic production design. The story is small scale focusing on a trio of friends who try to save a fireworks factory in their hometown, but the imagery feels expansive and lush. A New Dawn begins with a beautiful and vaguely familiar display of this beauty: the flowing, painterly imagery of its opening sequence recalls Shinomiya’s work on the flashback sequence in Makoto Shinkai‘s your name., immediately showing that the film’s visuals might transcend its small town drama.

A background artist himself on films by Makoto Shinkai as well as the similarly resplendent Pompo: The Cinéphile, it makes sense that this history would be felt in the background works of A New Dawn. They’re dense with detail, rich with almost luminous color and illustrative texture. Shinomiya, who also wrote and storyboarded the film, veers away from the photorealism associated with someone like Shinkai through some impressionist touches – like the splotches of green paint which represent treelines – which sometimes turns into outright abstraction like when a character begins to run through the space. Sometimes there are swaying, morphing textures in the background as splotches of paint subtly shift around. On a more intimate level, the cluttered and characterful interior spaces tell a story too. This is a long-winded way of saying A New Dawn looks really, really good.

It’s not just in the tableaux of its countryside habitats and ramshackle living spaces carved out of abandoned warehouses, but there’s a sense of invention permeating through A New Dawn‘s various experiments with visual languages of animation. The most prominent is an incredibly charming stop motion animated sequence using a cardboard diorama and real human hands invading the shot in a creative reflection of a drunken character’s perspective. Even though it broadly still looks “anime” through its character design, there are also smaller details which work to set A New Dawn apart from its contemporaries, touches like its occasional lineless artwork or the way rain is defined through smudged black brushstrokes.

It’s in the screenwriting where A New Dawn begins to feel more run of the mill. Its story about the constant chasing of the majesty of a fabled firework “Shuhari” feels both familiar in its premise but also a little bit alienating in its structure. The importance of the firework itself never feels clear – the moment its mystery is unravelled hardly feels like a revelation as a result, something amplified by how the writing often obfuscates what anyone is talking about. The whole story feels a little distancing, and despite the allure of the background art and design of the spaces the characters inhabit, the people themselves feel constantly at arms length.

It almost pulls things back with its climax – the detonation of the “Shuhari” goes a long way in justifying the circular conversations about its nature and origins – a painted streak of light launches into the sky before turning into something otherworldly, suddenly tripling down on the film’s captivating exaggerations.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Hollywood Pariah Kevin Spacey Opens in a Straight to Video Movie with 25 Producers, 1 Review, No Theaters, No Press – Showbiz411

Published

on

Hollywood Pariah Kevin Spacey Opens in a Straight to Video Movie with 25 Producers, 1 Review, No Theaters, No Press – Showbiz411
★ Make Showbiz411 your Preferred Source on Google

As we know, Kevin Spacey is a pariah in Hollywood.

He’s in a rare club with Mel Gibson, Armie Hammer, Nate Parker, Jonathan Majors, and James Franco.

Spacey has managed to avoid jail time by reaching settlements with various accusers of sexual malfeasance, all men.

His film career — which included two Oscars and a Tony Award — has been destroyed.

Advertisement

Spacey has been reduced to appearing in straight to video films, made for whatever reason the various producers involved know only to themselves.

On Friday, a new Spacey movie surfaced against its will, but not in theaters. It also went straight to video. “1780” is a period piece set during the Revolutionary War. Spacey plays a toothless Pennsylvania country trapper.

There is no rating on Rotten Tomatoes, largely because there is only one review. The review by Alan Ng of Film Threat is positive. Ng recently reviewed “World War Bigfoot,” which he also liked. He seems to specialize in reviewing films no one has heard of.

“1780” does boast 25 producers who will probably not see a return on their investment. But they can say they made a movie with Kevin Spacey.

Advertisement

Donate to Showbiz411.com

Showbiz411 is now in its 13th year of providing breaking and exclusive entertainment news. This is an independent site, unlike the many Hollywood trades that are owned by one company. To continue providing news that takes a fresh look at what’s going on in movies, music, theater, etc, advertising is our basis. Reader donations would be greatly appreciated, too. They are just another facet of keeping fact based journalism alive.
Thank you

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending