Odd little film. Before an exorcist will perform the rite, you have to be evaluated by a psychiatrist and then there needs to be evidence you speak in a language not known to you, have supernatural wisdom about other people, have the ability to manipulate items around you/cause paranormal activity, etc. She had none of these abilities. The women in the crowd scene were all simply making noises and twisting about; that wasn't an exorcism either. So not sure what the point of the film was. The main exorcist never performed an exorcism on camera, just talked about those he had. Another claimed to have done at least 70,000 (!) but perhaps it was wrongly translated it meant 7000. The one priest who met with the couple never asked for proof as to her possession. All she did was moan a bit, say that she never forgave her father for not loving her. By the end of the film, she said she had hope she was nearing her "liberation" and if she was fully delivered, glory to God, and if not, glory to God. But we never understood what was troubling her, other than what she said. After about 30 minutes, this all became rather aimless and by the end, it simply ceased, with no one better or wiser.
3 Reviews
No evidence the main subject was possessed, why'd she seek exorcism?
derekjager7 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
One Believes What One Wants To Believe
strong-122-47888524 February 2015
When it comes to the likes of exorcisms and demon possessions, there's an old, familiar saying that goes - "One believes what one wants to believe." - And, if you ask me, I think that that particular phrase fits in so very well when it comes to discussing such a topic as the one at hand.
And, on top of that - What I'd really like to know is, why is it that the Catholics are the one religious order who seem to have cornered the market on exorcisms? Eh? Why?
Anyways - In this unbelievably dull & religiously dry documentary concerning the role of the exorcist in the 21st Century, I think that this film's "Vatican-approved" scenario was a total set-up as a means to prove to the doubting viewer that (yes, indeed) Christianity really does wield "holy" power - But, hey, let's face it, folks - It was all hollow and gutless from start to finish.
The Exorcist In the 21st Century presents to the viewer a Colombian woman named Constanza who boldly claims that for the past 15 years she has been demon-possessed. And, let me tell ya - If Constanza really is possessed, she certainly came across as being one of the most non-possessed "possessed" persons that anyone (in their right mind) could ever imagine.
Yes. Constanza did have something that suggested a mild mental disorder, but, unfortunately, she was so totally hell-bent on attaching anti-Christ significance to this dysfunction. (And this was all because she viewed herself as being a very "bad" girl)
Anyhow - For anyone who's interested in watching this documentary, I promise not to spill-the-beans about what all takes place when it comes to the likes of Constanza's affliction.
But, I will say that it really killed me that out of the half-dozen, or so, Catholic priests who were asked what they thought of the 1973 movie The Exorcist, each and every one of them, literally, gushed gleefully over it with holy praise.
Ha! I thought that that was absolutely priceless 'cause, in that very movie, it wasn't the priests uttering religious mumbo-jumbo that drove the demon out of young Regan. No. It was Father Damien beating Regan repeatedly in the face with his big fists that convinced the unclean entity to vamoose out of there, like, pronto!
And, on top of that - What I'd really like to know is, why is it that the Catholics are the one religious order who seem to have cornered the market on exorcisms? Eh? Why?
Anyways - In this unbelievably dull & religiously dry documentary concerning the role of the exorcist in the 21st Century, I think that this film's "Vatican-approved" scenario was a total set-up as a means to prove to the doubting viewer that (yes, indeed) Christianity really does wield "holy" power - But, hey, let's face it, folks - It was all hollow and gutless from start to finish.
The Exorcist In the 21st Century presents to the viewer a Colombian woman named Constanza who boldly claims that for the past 15 years she has been demon-possessed. And, let me tell ya - If Constanza really is possessed, she certainly came across as being one of the most non-possessed "possessed" persons that anyone (in their right mind) could ever imagine.
Yes. Constanza did have something that suggested a mild mental disorder, but, unfortunately, she was so totally hell-bent on attaching anti-Christ significance to this dysfunction. (And this was all because she viewed herself as being a very "bad" girl)
Anyhow - For anyone who's interested in watching this documentary, I promise not to spill-the-beans about what all takes place when it comes to the likes of Constanza's affliction.
But, I will say that it really killed me that out of the half-dozen, or so, Catholic priests who were asked what they thought of the 1973 movie The Exorcist, each and every one of them, literally, gushed gleefully over it with holy praise.
Ha! I thought that that was absolutely priceless 'cause, in that very movie, it wasn't the priests uttering religious mumbo-jumbo that drove the demon out of young Regan. No. It was Father Damien beating Regan repeatedly in the face with his big fists that convinced the unclean entity to vamoose out of there, like, pronto!
Portrait of a current-age exorcism that contains only what the camera captured, allowing it to avoid judgements beyond those added by the viewers.
insigniumdoomster12 November 2016
Seldom does one come across films that are as misunderstood and misrepresented by the critics as The Exorcist in the 21st Century. While nearly every critic claims that it states a for or against opinion on the topic, it actually wastn't supposed to do either. To quote the website dedicated to the documentary (theexorcistdoc.com): "The goal of the film is to delve into this mysterious world and let people decide for themselves what to believe." Whether or not it succeeded is a different matter, but I think that question could be answered by simply looking at the critics once more. Their (erroneous) claims of the intentions of the creators behind the documentary goes both ways depending on the mindset of the critic in question, thus forcing us to conclude that the film did as intended: The Exorcist in the 21st Century is placed on neutral enough ground that the critics see whatever bias their own biases allows them to see.
(There is, however, a likely reason for the behaviour of the aforementioned critics. Documentaries that try for an unappraising approach to a given subject are rare, very rare. It is likely that they were so accustomed to being fed someone else's opinion that they never expected this documentary to be any different.)
The concept combines the belief in the possession by malignant souls with the belief in a deity who permits their eviction. In other words there must be a possessed and an evictor. The sufferer is a lady named Constanza who says she has been infested with demons for fifteen years. To finally bring about an end to this she has contacted Father José Antonio Fortea, one of the few exorcists sanctioned by the Catholic Church. We are introduced to two very real lives, both of which are much to regular and everyday to ever tempt Hollywood, but then again most lives are just like that despite their occasional dislocations from the average.
The documentary ends with what everyone expects from it, an exorcism. This includes not just the sermoning and the opposition by the possessed in its simplicity, again as Hollywood would have presented us. Our mimicry, with the eyes in particular, are windows into our minds where our thoughts attempt to leak through, occasionally opposed, yet unopposed at other times, and once in a while there will escape an impulse from those bonds that attempt to bind it internally and then give us a glimpse of what is hidden deep inside. Unlike with Hollywood's simulation of life there are real lives behind the mimicry herein, and the richness of a life lived cannot ever be emulated better than reality itself can provide it. What I am trying to say is that this is perhaps the most important part of the experience of watching this film: The depth of the individuals involved and the following deeper understanding of those actualities which are linked to a real- life exorcism.
I see only one negative side of the documentary and that is the inclusion of a disagreeing commentator, although he is present but in a few brief occasions. It is defended with that he is a part of the Catholic Church and that his presence is there to give insight into the disagreements within the church on the subject of exorcisms. I felt that it conflicted with the social-anthropological nature of the overall movie by forcing debate rather than letting the debate rise within the viewer on its own volition.
In brief, I would recommend watching this documentary with the awareness that it was never intended to influence you beyond showing you what happened. I would also recommend ignoring the aforementioned commentator and focus on interpreting the happenings the camera captured, instead letting your own thought processes and curiosity lead your evaluations. On a whole I would claim that this is exactly the kind of documentary which is truly valuable when attempting to gain insight into the workings of exorcisms. Now that so many other documentaries have presented the pro/con debate in countless ways it is truly refreshing to see for oneself what all the fuzz is about.
(There is, however, a likely reason for the behaviour of the aforementioned critics. Documentaries that try for an unappraising approach to a given subject are rare, very rare. It is likely that they were so accustomed to being fed someone else's opinion that they never expected this documentary to be any different.)
The concept combines the belief in the possession by malignant souls with the belief in a deity who permits their eviction. In other words there must be a possessed and an evictor. The sufferer is a lady named Constanza who says she has been infested with demons for fifteen years. To finally bring about an end to this she has contacted Father José Antonio Fortea, one of the few exorcists sanctioned by the Catholic Church. We are introduced to two very real lives, both of which are much to regular and everyday to ever tempt Hollywood, but then again most lives are just like that despite their occasional dislocations from the average.
The documentary ends with what everyone expects from it, an exorcism. This includes not just the sermoning and the opposition by the possessed in its simplicity, again as Hollywood would have presented us. Our mimicry, with the eyes in particular, are windows into our minds where our thoughts attempt to leak through, occasionally opposed, yet unopposed at other times, and once in a while there will escape an impulse from those bonds that attempt to bind it internally and then give us a glimpse of what is hidden deep inside. Unlike with Hollywood's simulation of life there are real lives behind the mimicry herein, and the richness of a life lived cannot ever be emulated better than reality itself can provide it. What I am trying to say is that this is perhaps the most important part of the experience of watching this film: The depth of the individuals involved and the following deeper understanding of those actualities which are linked to a real- life exorcism.
I see only one negative side of the documentary and that is the inclusion of a disagreeing commentator, although he is present but in a few brief occasions. It is defended with that he is a part of the Catholic Church and that his presence is there to give insight into the disagreements within the church on the subject of exorcisms. I felt that it conflicted with the social-anthropological nature of the overall movie by forcing debate rather than letting the debate rise within the viewer on its own volition.
In brief, I would recommend watching this documentary with the awareness that it was never intended to influence you beyond showing you what happened. I would also recommend ignoring the aforementioned commentator and focus on interpreting the happenings the camera captured, instead letting your own thought processes and curiosity lead your evaluations. On a whole I would claim that this is exactly the kind of documentary which is truly valuable when attempting to gain insight into the workings of exorcisms. Now that so many other documentaries have presented the pro/con debate in countless ways it is truly refreshing to see for oneself what all the fuzz is about.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
