Accidental Exorcist (2016) User Reviews

Unique, interesting; Absolute gem.

[InDyingArms · 5/10 · 3 July 2016]

Usually within the realm of low budget horror flicks, it's safe to say the assumption thought "It'll suck" comes straight to mind. Accidental Exorcist has flaws, but is surely, surely one of those rare finds when it comes to independent / low budget horror films.

Coming from a guy that has watched countless independent / low budget horror films in the past that I've refused to bother to review with due to how bad, boring, or cliché it may of been, this film shocked me. The story-line to this entire film was something else, it was something that's simply hard to come by in a horror movie. May not be the best concept in the world, but is it one that'll entertain? Perhaps have one one in a thought provoked state? Yes. We follow around an exorcist, in a sense a dead beat exorcist. One that has a power, yet drinks, takes drugs, and lives in a disgusting area. Pretty much gets booked to certain areas where apparent possessions are taking place, to where of course he goes, and provoked the demon posing the people. First off, this plot overall is interesting; It sounds boring through the review. But seeing the movie is another story. Would it make sense if I were to say it's a plot that you simply have to see to believe - yet you can't explain overall afterwards? The plot is unique, and something different. However it's also quite flawed. First off, don't you think it's a little convenient a person gets possessed by a demon of what seems to be every day? Throughout the entire movie, pretty much every day he was heading to exercise demon, after demon, after demon - Don't get me wrong, entertaining. Better than boredom ( Which is the route many possession flicks nowadays seem to take ) Second of all, the execution made it across the line when it came to the plot, but there were many, many unexplained holes within it. Without spoiling anything, what can be said is that there is many events our main character Richard is put through that don't exactly seem to make sense, and do absolutely nothing for any future of the film. Overall, however, the plot, as said before was unique, and something that sends the viewer into a bit of a thought provoked state, positively. Another flaw I saw in this film, which I'm sure some saw coming is the acting. Some on the on, and off characters' acting was bad. Since this is low budget, I was expecting this, but some actors just overreacted to an extreme. They tried so hard, and it just seems a bit awkward to watch befall. Overall however, toward the characters we see mostly; Mostly Richard. It could've been so, so much worse. And for what it was? Decent enough not to want to rip your own hair out, and quit the movie entirely. Now mostly toward the positive side of things. Low budget horror films usually have terrible cinematography, if you want to call it that, as well as terrible, terrible lighting. This film however wasn't too bad on that note. Sure, you can obviously see the low budget presence in the lighting, as well as cinematography. But the presentation of both elements wasn't bad at all, looking back on how much worse it gets. Lighting overall keeps it to where we see what needs to be seen, and the cinematography doesn't shake to the moon and back - overall succeeding in the purposes! And finally, a massive, massive positive that took me personally by complete surprise. The dark humor, as well as comedy aspect of this film; This is horror comedy. It's actually succeeding in being funny, if not, succeeding in giving a few chuckles. It's simply unique how the comedy is taken upon in this exorcist / possession genre. The main character / actor takes his character to an interestingly funny level that just succeeds, and is fun to watch as he goes about, while at the same time adding in the dark humor. The dark humor of which succeeds.

In conclusion. This film has decent acting, at the same time succeed in making pointless dialog, as well as actions funny; Dark humor succeeds at being funny. The overall acting of others wasn't so great, the plot was unique, and entertaining to say the best. At the same time it had holes, it had unexplained, noticeable upbringings, and some elements were even as far as ridiculous. The film itself also dragged on for a good amount of time, lowering the rating, and charm further. Overall however; Imagine an Adult Swim horror film, this would probably fill in that spot, despite it's 20 or so minutes of seriousness. This film was an overall ride, definitely not for all horror fans however. Take it with a grain of salt, see if it deserves your attention. Overall this was a gem for sure, however. Unique executions with typical flaws.

Lo-fi and a bit grotty to watch but it has some originality buried in the mix

[Red-Barracuda · 5/10 · 24 April 2017]

We follow an alcoholic exorcist who lives in extremely dingy conditions as he goes out on his daily routine visiting various possessed individuals and carrying out exorcisms.

This is a very low budget film indeed. Its primary actor Daniel Falicki, also is the director. Falicki puts in a pretty fearlessly intense performance here, portraying a highly unglamourized character. I found this film to be impressive in some respects but hard going in others. On the positive side of the fence, this truly is a new take on the possession film sub-genre, with the methods used entirely at odds with what we have become accustomed to. There are a number of these encounters and I have to say that there was a certain atmosphere generated for many of them which was pretty effective too. On the negative side, it was an excessively grimy and grungy film to endure, with a great deal of puke, spittle and sweat. When the main character isn't getting filthy as part of his day job he's hitting the booze in sweaty locations – it all gets a little much after a bit. The sheer rawness of the production values also ensures this is rough stuff technically which isn't necessarily a deal-breaker but it does mean you need to be willing to accept a very lo-fi product. With all this in mind it did feel like the movie itself might have benefited from being about twenty minutes shorter as well, as the material is also a little repetitive as well as very raw. I do have to give Falicki some credit though, as he has put together an original take on this type of material, with the exorcisms especially being extremely far removed from what you will have seen before. For such a micro-budgeted movie, I think it is commendable that he has decided to venture out into such unforeseen territory. So, while I think this production has some definite problems, I also appreciate that was not afraid to at least try something new.

Lacks basic film-making qualities

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 17 June 2017]

Apart from a couple of sequences, ACCIDENTAL EXORCIST is just your usual nondescript low rent horror movie that typically consists of a single actor talking to the camera for long, stretched-out passages of time. There is a plot of sorts, but it's a very boring plot and full of too much chatter. There's the occasional energetic moment but otherwise this is a film lacking in the most basic qualities of film-making.

It's technical. It doesn't concern you.

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 29 October 2017]

Richard Vanuk (Daniel Falicki) has stigmata markings and performs exorcism with ease, normally boring the possessed with a story before he lays hands on them. He is very casual about his job but he works through an agency and doesn't get paid well. He is behind on his rent and ahead on his drinking. His unkempt appearance makes him look like an unlikely person to perform exorcism, but who are we to judge who God gives his gifts to.

We see Richard perform a number of such exorcisms with ease, but the film never went anywhere and it had a seemingly pointless ending. This was a wasted opportunity. Mildly funny.

Guide: F-word, brief sex, pixilated nudity.

Ignore The Bad Reviews - Interesting and Darkly Funny in a Shaun of the Dead Kind of Way

[mark-mcwane · 8/10 · 1 July 2016]

I read a few initial reviews on pure horror sites that gave this film low scores for the most part. The film is an interesting concept whereby the main character, Richard "Rich" Vanuk (actor Daniel Falicki) is gifted with the ability to easily (for the most part) cast demons out of the possessed. I will not spoil the how, but I actually enjoyed this overall plot device, even as Rich is a tragic and conflicted person, caught up in his own personal "demons".

My wife and I are big fans of Shaun of the Dead, as well as pure zombie films that are not comedic (think 28 Days Later, the Resident Evil series, etc.). Where Accidental Exorcist worked for us both is in its intended or unintended dark humor, especially the moments during the scenes of exorcism. Each of the exorcism characters are vastly different, from a young woman, to a black minister in a bathtub, to an obese, long-haired hippy guy, to a devoted Catholic man and his brother.

The humor comes from a number of places that resonate well, at least for me. The deadpan conversations that Rich has with the possessed, prior to helping them, are hilarious, as are the exorcism scenes. And there are some more serious moments that work as well, such as the post-exorcism conversation Rich has with Jeremiah, the fourth possession. And then that scene ends badly, breaking the touching moment, but in an almost expected way for a guy like Rich who just cannot seem to catch a positive break.

When Rich reluctantly takes an office cubicle job in a plastic pigment company the lighting of the scene is so well done, with that horrible fluorescent hue that is so dehumanizing. Richard's on-boarding guidance and conversation with his boss is also hilarious, as is the overall scene, with the conversations of other sales folks on calls wafting around the office. The scene is comically evocative of the movie "Office Space", and even as it is a short scene, it is a nice deviation from the feel and pacing of the movie leading up to it.

For a B movie that most people will most likely never see, I give this film a solid 8 out of 10, primarily for the well-executed and well-written dark comedic moments that lift the film from what would be just a campy exorcism film to a movie that I see watching again, and most likely, more than just a second time, as I have done over the years with Shaun of the Dead. And I really enjoyed Daniel Falicki as an actor, and will definitely be checking out some of his other films, as he surprised me (as an unknown actor to me prior to Accidental Exorcist) with his range and abilities.

One of the best horror movies ever!

[wolvesrunheremusic · 10/10 · 28 November 2018]

Amazing work by Daniel Falicki. Well-acted, intensely disturbing and comedic at the same time. For general fans of horror, art and film, make up, prosthetics, animatronics. Accidental Exorcist has it all! It's also psychologically accurate in its dealing with addiction and alcoholism, which adds a flare of real drama and an empathy with the main character. Highly recommended!

Thought provoking and gruesomely entertaining, but what's with the visual censorship?

[hippiedj · 8/10 · 2 September 2017]

Dan Falicki's Accidental Exorcist is a thinking man's horror... or rather, more of a drama considering the extensive scenes of Falicki's character taking the time to ponder life and discuss it with the person he's about to exorcise. I found it to be very entertaining and a breath of fetid fresh air since so many low budget horror films are just a dime a dozen these days. Accidental Exorcist was such a nice surprise, and better yet, I got it on Blu-ray.

One BIG problem for me, though: Censorship. The climactic scene, in which Falicki is quite naked, is blurred over his mid region so you won't see his pubic area. Give me a break. This is an unrated film, quite excessively gooey in it's practical gore effects, and his genitals are not right up in the camera lens -- and seen in only a few brief flashes so that even if it wasn't blurred you wouldn't be staring at it. However, since it IS blurred, it takes you right out of the movie. You have this crazy climactic scene and you're too distracted by the blur on your screen, as if you're watching something censored like on basic television. Considering many R-rated features do have full frontal male nudity prominently displayed and are sold in retail stores, why would a small film like this be censored?

THE ANSWER: I contacted its production company and was told "that blurring you note was imposed on us due to the objection of a major cable PPV provider," and by not wanting to pay the exorbitant fee to have a rating, the powers that be do "have a say in what you see ultimately and if you don't comply when caught in the trap, then your movie doesn't get seen, real simple."

If this was somehow imposed by PPV providers to make heterosexual males less uncomfortable, or ANYone less uncomfortable, that's sad. You can bet they wouldn't be objecting if it were naked females. Sure, I can sort of understand if they had to cave for for the PPV version, but they should have left the DVD uncensored.

I'd still recommend Accidental Exorcist for those looking for a cerebral, thought provoking (albeit gory) film, just be warned that it's a bit distracting when visual tampering occurs near the end. It IS still a great film to discover!

Best film I've seen this year (2020)

[iamthehollow · 9/10 · 26 March 2020]

Basically a film about addiction, wearing the clothes of a horror film...this film really surprised me, I watch a LOT of films and you don't come across a film this unique very often.

Brilliantly acted by the lead, this man is naturally funny without being smug, which is quite the trick...grungy aesthetics, wonderful cinematography with excellent editing and direction.

The rating it has right now is a reflection of it's refusal to be an easy watch...the rating will grow.

Great Acting & Ending

[immaculusvonnorton · 9/10 · 4 January 2024]

The film avoids the clumsy performances that are often part and parcel of films of this style and budget. Falicki is probably a better actor than director, although he isn't terrible at directing either, and his performance here is great. He manages to bring a lot of empathy to his character, which is hard to do for a character that is a sort of self absorbed drunkard. When I first finished it I wished that I had understood the background of the character a bit better, and how they gained such a strange power, but as I have sat on it for awhile I think that it would only spoil it to reveal too much. The ending is truly disturbing. Not believing in twisted religious mythology like heaven and hell usually spoils their impact for me, but somehow it is done here in a way that gets right under your skin.

Obscenely Underrated

[deadbull-95171 · 10/10 · 13 September 2020]

A ridiculously underrated low budget movie. Following the Friedkin/Blatty work of art there have been a million movies in the exorcist genre. This the second good one. Creative, ironic, funny, intelligent...the director mocks all the clichés he uses but still keeps it a serious movie. You can see its influences from "barfly" to "The Exorcist" and it's fully intentional. The exorcist himself mocks his own role in this, implicitly honoring his predecessors'. But it's a really quite serious movie, and the subliminal "vibe" is quite serious, even tragic, and in a way, more tragic, and more deeply personal, then its great grandfather movie. I do not always give a TEN to an undisputed work of genius, whatever that might be. I suppose Raging Bull is a great movie, or Der Blue Engel, The Lost Weekend.....or god knows what.....but then there is this modest budget (I assume) film with people I never saw before. The intelligence of direction and Daniel Falicki's star-turn performance are moving and compelling and deeply original. The movie is an homage to all that has come before. There are even verbally stated direct references to media pieces......yet as I say it still manages to be original. It is very character driven, and you end up getting drawn way into the personal aspects of the exorcist's terrible life. It is a fine movie at ANY budget, and my hat's off to all personnel involved. It is a big reaffirmation for me, as in music, that with all the tech equipment on earth, if the talent isn't there, the excess is just that, a waste. Sometimes, inadvertently or deliberately, the constraints imposed by low budgets, benefit a film if the topic puts the protagonist in that sort of situation. It is a sort of "blessing " that a brilliant director like John Waters had the crew he had and the tight budget, or we might never would have got Desperate Living or Pink Flamingoes etc. And sometimes high budget things with high profile actors TRY to look docu and low budget, if they are trying to emphasize something. It sure worked in Sunset Limited with Samuel Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones. Of course with the writing by a man as gifted as Cormac Mccarthy (Blood Meridian etc) it would be hard not to get a winner. It's Samuel Jackson at his best too, I think. How silly Accidental Exorcist would look filmed in palatial hotels or yachts, with exploding buildings and loaded with ludicrous CGI. A great movie. Highly recommended if you appreciate intelligent movie making and fine performance and to hell with the deep pockets. This one is a classic.

Unique and engaging low budget horror - Nicely filmed and sincere

[PutneyTrope · 8/10 · 15 May 2022]

This might seem like another low budget throwaway. It's low budget, but it's obvious that a great deal of care went into the making of this movie. When I say nicely filmed - i mean it. The composition of nearly every shot is outstanding. No exaggeration. For such a low budget film - this is unheard of. Nice job by cinematographer Scott Baisden. This is a horror/comedy. It's one of the more sincere films I've seen in while. It bumps silly moments against heartfelt and serious ones. There are a few creepy moments where the tension comes from literally not knowing what this film would pull out next. I don't buy Shawn Of The Dead (2004) comparisons. The lead (Daniel Falicki) does seem Simon Peggesque at times. This has more of a Bad Taste (1987) or Evil Dead (1981) feel to me. Grittier. The humor is scattershot and the banter peppered with pop culture references, both obvious and obscure. The lead character conveys quite well, the sense of perpetual misery caused by his exorcism talents. His performance is considerably more convincing than the mainstream attempts of portraying that "Constantine" character. I have absolutely no reason not to recommend this film to the horror fan. Any flaws are minor and overshadowed by cleverness or nifty camera work. Some minor aspects of make-up and stage dressing reveal the budget limitations. One dutch angle was a bit severe to my eyes. There's a vague non-ending which won't wrap anything up. This is more of a bizarre slice of life than an actual traditional story - make up your own ending if you need one. That's all the negative criticism I can muster. This film was such a surprise. This review was written after a third viewing. Highly recommended for aspiring horror filmmakers and camera operators. Even if you don't love it...i suspect you'll find something either amusing, unique, or enjoyable on some level. Vomit enthusiasts may also find this film of interest.