What’s with the willy-nilly spoilers, without even a warning? You don’t usually do that. (Having already seen The Exorcist once - which was enough - I’m not complaining on my own behalf, just pointing out an oddity.)

Pachyderminator: Although I have a high level of concern for spoilers (in fact, I’ve been slowly working on a blog post about spoilers for months now), my concern is principally with respect to the movie under discussion. I think the well-known ending of a 40-year-old movie can be considered fair game in a piece on a current horror film, though in an essay on The Exorcist itself I would be more circumspect.

Dear Steven,

I love your work - you are an invaluable resource. 

However, I was a little offended by the broad brush with which you painted “traditionalist” Catholics in this review, as I would consider myself such. 

There are many factions within the movement, and many nuances to our views regarding the obvious problems in the Church today, much of which you probably find agreement with. For example, if you don’t think that large segments (read: members) of the church have been “compromised by modernism” and “impede orthodox clerics from carrying out true spiritual work,” then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you

The condescending and dismissive approached taken in your review will not help to win converts to whatever you deem the correct response to modernism in the Church, and will only serve to disaffect us further.

Regards,
Steve

Dragging SSPX into the review was unwelcomed and unnecessary.  I doubt very seriously they would have enjoyed or approved of this filth called a movie any more than you did.  To present them otherwise regardless of the schism between us is sinful.

Steve,
 
Thanks for your kind words about my work.
 
Note that I specifically did not use the term “traditionalists” without qualification. I am well aware that this term can be used in reference to different points of view, some legitimate, some not. Thus, I specifically indicated a particular sort of “traditionalist,” i.e., “disaffected Catholic traditionalists embittered against the Church for post-Vatican II changes.”
 
I further went on to characterize the milieu I meant in other ways (e.g., “radical traditionalism”; citing Gibson and Jones; nutty ideas about Pope Benedict and Masonic plots, etc.). Nothing I said suggests that anyone calling himself a “traditionalist” fits this description. However, that there are traditionalists of this ilk is obvious—as is the convergence between their critique of the Church and that of the priests in this film. That is the serious point behind my tongue-in-cheek comments. 
 
Note also that I am not saying that any sort of critique of the Church itself, let alone Church culture, is out of bounds. For example, I specifically said that the sort of complaints that have been made about the new rite of exorcism may have merit. (I’m not, then, in the market for any bridges you may be selling.)
 
I agree that everyone, even bitter fringe traditionalists, needs to be respected and gently helped to come to a fuller understanding of the truth. But not all views need to be taken seriously all the time. Tongue-in-cheek humor and light satire have their place in the world—and by gum, a review for a movie like this is the right place for the note I’ve struck here.
 
It should be obvious, among other things, that I’m not really saying that pious traditionalists of any ilk are likely to enjoy this movie (though some may) … My absurdist opening paragraph is as much a way of saying “This is a movie without much of an audience at all” as it is anything. No one need feel slandered, misrepresented or disrespected here.
 
From which my answer to Franklin should be sufficiently clear.

Thank you for your response, points taken.

I read on a few sites that the ending is very bad, and because I have no interest in this movie, but am interested in the worst ending in cinema, I had to find a description of it.

Having searched the internet for spoilers to the ending, I have to say that it is very disappointing in two respects: disappointing in that it seemed like a bad ending for a movie, and disappointing in that it didn’t seem like the worst in cinema (I can’t think of any contenders for that dishonor at the moment, but I’m sure there are worse).

Stevie Wonder Greydanus, I thank you for your level-headed and above all Christ-centered work. You have helped me to get rid of poisonous films and choose others which are glorious works of art. May God continue to bless you in your work.

Steven,

Thanks for your response - may God bless all your good work abundantly!

Lumping Jones in with Gibson and “disaffected traditionalists” is either ignorant or you’re just taking a page out of the SPLC playbook.
How much are they paying you and Mr. Shea?

Not enough, Amadan. Not enough.

I walked out of the movie.  It was SO anti-Church I was beside myself.  I agree with the writer on The Rite - when the priest began reciting the Creed at the end, I was moved. 

The Devil Inside was just disgraceful.

Dang, Steven… You’ve actually talked me into *seeing* this movie now! There aren’t too many mainstream flicks with an extremist “radtrad” sensibility these days…

Andy Nowicki: Then my job is done. I gave you the information to make an informed choice, along with a responsible construal of that information. The final choice is up to you. (My feeling is: A dreadful film that happens to agree with you on some point or other is still a dreadful film. But experience has shown me that some people are willing to be a lot more forgiving in this regard than I am.)

I dont mind spoilers one bit,especially if it saves from wasting two hours of my life watching a really bad movie. great reveiw Steve!

After seeing one too many BAD films, some of them quite recently, I don’t have any morbid curioisty to see “the worst ending in the history of cinema.”

Maybe we can get The Asylum to work on a mockbuster version of “The Exorcist”.

Steven,

thanks for the review. Another anti-catholic film is very disappointing, but not surprising. Albeit, the subject matter is dicey and easily slides between irrational beliefs and actual supernatural phenomena, I enjoy a good horror-flick. Unfortunately, the genre has become dominated by revolting extremes and subjects, and contaminated with the Hollyweird fantasies.

I am not giving up hope for better films, but I will take a pass on The Devil Inside.

Hmm, well I had kind of a different take on the film. A friend had passes for a preview screening, and all I knew about the film was what was shown on the poster (scary-looking nun with the title).

Before the screening, the movie people were handing out free stuff to everyone in line: mini posters of the film and—-get this—-ROSARIES. I was gobsmacked. I had to check the crucifix to make sure Lady Gaga wasn’t on it or something—-but no, there was Jesus. No joke!

Well, I must have walked into the film in a generous sort of mood, because I didn’t see it really as anti-Catholic.

To me the film taught a powerful lesson: exorcism is a serious business, and it should NEVER be attempted outside the auspices of the Church. These renegade priests should have known that the Devil knew that their attempted exorcisms were without the Church’s approval. They went off on their own and soon lost control of it all.

(SPOILER)

And the movie ended in that terrible car crash as they were racing off to one of the professionals in the Vatican—which explains why the Devil decided to end his fun at that point.

—-

I didn’t mind the sudden ending, though there were many, many boos and catcalls in the audience! It scared me and made me laugh in parts (there’s some good cheese), so I guess it wasn’t too bad.

I did enjoy the Rite more (two words: Anthony Hopkins), and it is definitely more salutary, but to be honest I think this uglier film was a bit more realistic (to the extent that a horror exorcism film can be).

I know very well that the Holy Mother Church has a task of Governing, Sanctifying, and proclaiming the Good News of the Kingdom, and must go about doing this in truth and authority given by the master(Jesus Christ), all her members both the Priests and the layfaithful have this share task.

We all both Priests and the Layfaithful have a very big task of truly proclaiming the Gospel Spirit and not its letters.

Stephen didn’t give away the ending of the movie here, which is why it doesn’t seem like the worst in cinema history. Having heard him explain the ending of the movie on a radio broadcast, though, I do think it’s right up there for worst ever! My kids (17 and 15) heard from their various movie-going friends that the movie is AWFUL. These are kids who liked “Red Riding Hood” and the “Twilight” movies. They explained what they heard the end of the movie was, and apparently many movie-goers did not understand it, which says to me it didn’t make much sense. Hey, “Trollhunter” (yes, saw it) doesn’t make a whole lot of sense at the end either, but was decently entertaining in a similar vein—fake documentary. I love, love, love this line: “You see what a state the Church is in? Demonic nuns openly wander the streets of Rome, and the Vatican does nothing.”

Hello everyone, especially Stephen ... Having twice read the book on which “The Rite” is supposedly based, my opinion is that the movie version was pretty bad. Certainly not as bad as this current movie appears to be but still pretty bad.  It was mainly a vehicle for Anthony Hopkins to go over the top, again.  Similar to the movies with Al Pacino in which he does his schtick.

Though a few years old, my view is that “The Exorcism of Emily Rose” is by far the best - and most Catholic - exorcism movie ever made.  I think it is not given its due.  I don’t find any element of the movie “The Rite” to be better than TEOER.

I just finished viewing ‘The Season of the Witch. You wanna’ talk about virulent anti-Catholicism then there’s the flicker show for you.

hahaha.

Keith: While I agree that in general Emily Rose is the better film, here is one thing I like better about The Rite: Exorcism in The Rite is a long, drawn-out process that can last for weeks, months or even longer. In Emily Rose, months or even years of real-life exorcisms were compressed into a single dramatic event.

You need to open your eyes. There are so many modernists in the Church and they are killing the faith slowley. Many good people suffer a lot because of this. I’m not SSPX nor do I go to a Latin Mass. I’m just Catholic and I know that orthodoxy is persecuted.

A friend invited me to a preview screening of the film. I was gobsmacked when the movie people were handing out free stuff to us in line, and among the gifts I received was a pouch with the movie’s title printed on it. Inside? A rosary! Giving out rosaries at a multiplex! I couldn’t believe it. As for the film, maybe the rosary put me in a generous mood, but I didn’t see it as really anti-Catholic. I thought it taught an important lesson: exorcism is serious business; NEVER attempt one without Church approval. These two renegade priests should have known better. The Devil knows when an exorcism is attempted without the diocese’s authorization. It’s no surprise that things went tragically out of their control. (SPOILER AHEAD) The infamous sudden ending occurred when they were racing to a Vatican professional to put things right. It’s no surprise that at that moment the Devil decided to quit his fun and games and end it all.

I did enjoy The Rite more (two words: Anthony Hopkins), and it’s certainly a more pleasant and salutary experience than The Devil Inside, but I appreciated the greater believability/accuracy in the latter film (no atheist deacons getting sent to train as an exorcist, etc.). The Devil Inside scared me and had enough cheese to provide a few laughs, so I can’t complain about spending $0.00 to see it. I didn’t mind the ending either (I was expecting usual formula climax), though judging from the massive booing and jeering around me, I was one of the few! But like I said above, it was refreshing to see those rebelling against the Church face the dire consequences.

Horror is a fascinating genre for Catholics. My research into all films and their moral premises, leads me to conclude that if a film is popular at the box office with general audiences then it is somehow based on a psychological, moral and spiritual premise that is true. Thus, I don’t have to see THE DEVIL WITHIN to know that is is based on a false moral premise. But that all begs the questions as to why, if my thesis that popularity and truth are related, the horror genre, when produced well, is so dang popular. After thinking on it for a few years, I came up with a list of reasons. It is here, The Top 10 Virtues of Horror: http://moralpremise.blogspot.com/2011/12/virtues-of-horror.html

Stanley D. Williams, Ph.D., Author
the Moral Premise
http://www.moralpremise.com

“Somehow she has fallen in with a documentary filmmaker named Michael (Ionut Grama) working on a project about exorcism”

Oh, what a fortuitous coincidence! :)

I’m a Novus Ordo Catholic who just happens to think that targeting traditionalist catholics with sarcasm was unnecessary.  did they have anything to do with the production of that movie? They didn’t deserve to be dragged into that movie review. And the clause, “If I considered, I imagine….”=none of us have a right to speak for them.  If you want to think about what you IMAGINE they think of the movie, can you please ask THEM? 

This was my first time on this web site. It was sent to me by another Catholic after a group discussion about decent movies.  That’s all I was looking for.  I didn’t expect to find an article which used a movie as an opportunity to bash other Catholics.  Humility and charity are virtues.

I detect Steve has an axe to grind with those that fight against liberalism and modernism. I heard a review of The Nativity Story once where a radio host called out the issue this movie has with the depiction of Mary in intense labor pains. The radio host offered church documents to support his case that Mary did not suffer in childbirth like a typical woman. Steve had the support of commentary from a “loyal” bishop and that was all. 

Lets all pray for each other that we grow in holiness together. Amen.

Amy: There is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo Catholic.” The “Novus Ordo,” properly called the ordinary form of the Roman Missal, is not a separate rite from the traditional Latin Mass, properly called the extraordinary form. We who belong to the Roman rite are Roman Catholics, period, regardless which form of the missal we prefer or commonly use.
 
I am grateful to our Holy Father for expanding access to the extraordinary form of the Roman missal. I am also grateful to him for emphasizing the unity of the Roman rite. Let’s not obfuscate that unity by dividing ourselves into “Novus Ordo” and “Traditional” Catholics.
 
Rick: a) You “detect,” and judge, erroneously. b) On the occasion you mention, rather than bandy sources with my host, I directed listeners to an essay where the issue is discussed in greater detail. Because I didn’t cite arguments or sources doesn’t mean I don’t have any. c) Your scare quotes around “a ‘loyal’ bishop” in references to Avery Cardinal Dulles, until his death America’s premier theologian, are an affront to a great man and a great son of the Church.

@Amy -

Welcome to the site!

Not that SDG needs defending at all as he does fine all by himself, I hope you take time to read his comments posted above to ‘another’ Steve about his misunderstanding about Steven’s descriptions.  As he says he was using ‘absurdist’ language to describe the only type of audience who might like this type of awfulness and by doing so recognizes that no such audience does (or should) exist.

I sincerely hope you come back.  You will find SDG’s reviews/posts always interesting, often funny and of real benefit when you and your family are deciding how to spend your free time and movie money.

Steve:

The meeting of Panty-Waist Semi-Catholic Liberal Subverters of Truly True Catholicism is this Friday at 1 PM EST.  Don’t forget to bring your $100 bill to light your cigar.  We will be strategizing how to turn innocents against the True Faith and hand them over to effete gay Obama voters for medical experimentation at our Planned Parenthood facilities.  The movies play a vital role in our plans, so your participation is mandatory and absence will not be tolerated.  Gibson and Jones have been neutralized.  Next: Mark Wahlberg!

Thanks for your reviews. I have not seen the posters with the nun but I was wondering, since the movie pits the trads vs. the modernists - why the nun is wearing a habit? Shouldn’t she be garbed in a chunky, over-sized cardigan and polyester pants?

Mark Shea: I may be running late due to a screening of an immoral Hollywood movie I have to promote. That means I’ll have my $100 bills (payola!), but given how controversial smoking is in Hollywood I will leave my cigars at home, so I’ll be bumming off you again. As for Wahlberg, he’s in hot water at the moment, but that could change, so it may be necessary to escalate things. Perhaps he can be persuaded to take a superhero name.
 
gahanorama: An oversized cardigan and polyester pants might have been more realistic, but in that case only Catholics would have recognized her as a nun, and the poster would not have screamed “CREEPY CATHOLIC STUFF!!!!” to the general public. It’s the traditional stuff that makes Catholicism photogenic in the first place.

True.  That’s why TV and Movie priests always call everybody, “My child” when I have never in my life met a priest who says that.  Screenwriters don’t seem to have a lot of living experience with Catholics.

Steve - I have great respect for theologians but defer to church documents for the official truth. When there is a difference, church documents win, and theologians are offered forgiveness. It is really tough for theologians to be an expert on every topic. Error is understandable and indicative of being human. I hope you agree.

“There is no such thing as a “Novus Ordo Catholic.” True, and what’s more Pope Benedict XV would agree with you: “24. It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided… because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected… There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”

I know I’m late to this thread, but my goodness do some people have thin skin!

Anyway, too bad the movie was terrible. Guess I’ll just have to work up the guts to watch Friedkin’s movie on dvd.