Russell Crowe's foray into horror in The Exorcism leaves you begging for a gladiatorial U-turn: Film review

Crowe stars as Anthony Miller - a troubled actor who lost his career due to alcohol and drugs - who begins to once again unravel while shooting a supernatural horror film, his first since coming out of rehab.

His estranged daughter, Lee (played by Ryan Simpkins), returns home and it's clear their relationship is massively strained due to her upbringing and father's absence.

But despite their taught relationship, she leaps into the role of her father's personal assistant - the relationship batted between hatred and resentment, to endearment and care too many times to keep up.

When the demonic possession begins to place - which is thrown in your face with such little subtlety all the scare factor is gone - she wonders whether he is slipping back into his past addictions due to the pressure of his first job back or if perhaps there is something sinister at play.

The movie only received 47 per cent on Rotten Tomatoes and it's understandable why. Anything more would've left me scratching my head as to what film others saw.

The Exorcist wasn't especially scary, but it does successfully build a definite sense of dread - something that director Joshua James Miller has unfortunately failed to do.

The Conjuring, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Devil Inside, Deliver Us From Evil, Annabelle, Insidious and Sinister all successfully explore the world of possession and demons - keeping audiences on their toes.

With a generic title - perhaps an attempt to invoke nostalgia among fans of 1973 classic - The Exorcism is sadly an underwhelming entry into the horror genre.

This disappointment was only heightened after the discovery that the executive producer of Scream, Kevin Williams, had worked on this film.

The Scream franchise is a classic in the horror/thriller genre - whatever your opinion may be, six movies and a TV series attest to that.

With The Exorcism, viewers are given the standard tropes of demonic possessions, including looking a bit more tired than usual, saying nasty things to the people who are trying to help you, and flying... something I still don't understand.

Many of the classic horror elements felt shoehorned within this film for the benefit of mainstream audiences who need cheap and expectant jump scares to keep them invested.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Sir Rod Stewart shares sweet tribute to wife Penny Lancaster as couple celebrate anniversary
• BBC The Repair Shop sees Jay Blades left stunned by story behind hidden World War Two radio
• Justin Timberlake's lawyer says singer will be 'vigorously defending' allegations following DWI charge

During the first five minutes, I was drawn in and excited to see what demonic and twisted journey I was about to be taken on - quickly realising that that was the only glimmer of hope I was going to get.

Many of the "scare" elements heavily relied on loud sound effects and the lights flashing - something which quickly became unbearable.

After 30 minutes, I soon realised that the possession was taking place but it was only due to Crowe's character walking down the lobby of their apartment block speaking in Latin that I realised - demon got in there quick!

The film attempts to do too much in one go; alcohol battles combined with career struggles mixed in with childhood trauma and father-daughter issues that desperately need counselling more than Crowe needs an exorcism.

It all just feels quite humdrum. Two attempts at some soft humour are made, but it fails and feels more like they ran out of things to say so decided to just chuck some cheap jokes in.

Miller relies a lot on darkness between the set and the recesses of Anthony’s vast, gloomy apartment which we are often plunged into suddenly, leaving it to feel a bit forced - losing its power.

A question. Why do all exorcism films now end with the demon switching bodies because someone else has asked nicely, and then start to spew out lewd comments?

It just seems fake, overused and honestly boring now. It worked in the original Exorcist because it was the first of its kind and it was a child who was screaming obscenities - but now the idea of a demon attempting to shock with crude comments just seems laughable.

Crowe is fine at playing a troubled actor, but when the script calls on him to leer and be menacing, he is in no way up to the job - and after not attending church since he was a boy, he magically knew how to perform an exorcism? Makes sense.

All in all, the ending felt extremely rushed and whilst Crowe's character had flashbacks of his childhood which alluded to abuse from a priest, we never really found out what happened.

At this point, I am beginning to wonder why directors keep churning out copycat movies which all have the same ending - a possessed individual saves the day and has a life-changing perspective... you can do that without being possessed by a demon.

50 years later, after the first demonic film depicted a real fear of damnation, and a supernatural evil as sordid and juvenile, where is the interest?

Moral of the story: Stop making nonsensical and baseless movies about exorcisms and Crowe should return back to his gladiatorial roots.