In a new horror film, a washed-up actor with a troubled past is given a lead role. Russell Crowe plays Anthony Miller, an alcoholic actor who is battling personal demons while attempting to resurrect his career in “The Exorcism.” Lee (Ryan Simpkins), his recently expelled daughter, works alongside him as a production assistant on set.
The story begins with a dubious on-set passing, establishing an inauspicious vibe that, sadly, never hardens. In a horror film that takes place in a world that is actually haunted by supernatural forces, the movie tries to understand how the lines between fiction and reality are blurred. Joshua John Miller, the film’s director, tries to combine a dramatic character study with elements of a horror film. The result is a disjointed experience that has trouble finding its feet. Given that Miller’s father, Jason Miller, played Father Karras in the original classic, he was heavily influenced by William Friedkin’s “The Exorcist” not only thematically but also through direct references.
The narrative may have gained additional emotional depth as a result of this personal connection. However, it ultimately feels like two competing stories crammed into one because it struggles to strike a balance between its dramatic core and the horror elements. As Anthony Miller, Crowe gives a sincere performance, embodying the character’s internal struggles with gravitas that suggests what the movie could have been. His depiction of a man tormented by both strict and figurative evil presences gives the film’s most convincing minutes, especially when he wrestles with his dependence and culpability.
Lee, played by Ryan Simpkins, is less fortunate because her character is not fully developed and is primarily used as a plot device to advance Anthony’s story. David Hyde Pierce as Father Conor, the on-set cleric and specialist, adds a layer of quiet separation to the procedures, however his personality, in the same way as other others, needs profundity and an unmistakable reason. The atmosphere of the movie tries to imitate the frightful tension of “The Exorcist,” but it frequently fails. The psychological horror Miller seeks is undermined by scenes designed to evoke fear that overrely on predictable jump scares.
The meta-commentary on the nature of horror filmmaking itself is one notable aspect. The movie-within-a-movie format makes it possible to investigate the psychological toll of playing such ominous roles. However, there is insufficient development of this promising angle, leaving viewers with more questions than answers.
