queenlightningmcqueen Only 20 minutes into this "documentary" and let me say... what a giant load of donkey doo doo.Using some kind of "demon" voice that should only be used by Hollywood for the average run of the mill horror film.Seriously people, don't waste your precious time on this piece of garbage. It will make you cringe so badly.

dsmcg OK, call me a skeptic, but if I taped someone speaking in dual voiced slightly delayed harmonics, that would be the key to the entire project right there. The title would be, Possession proof via audio recording of the voice of Satan! Instead, it goes without discussion or further interest. This could mean one thing; it's a fake. (It sounds exactly like the Satan voice you can buy with vocal effect units at any music store.) Why would he bury the lead? It serves one purpose; keep the believers believing, And that is all the audience you need when you are a charlatan. Meanwhile, those who know a bit about audio or are skeptics will immediately wonder what happened? How did that get skipped over? This is a much more crucial mystery because it needs to be solved before you can take the next step. Friedkin could have not only eliminated this question but sold the whole project on it! But he did not. Again, ask yourself why? The non-religious testimony is dismissive. The religious commenters are useless in this context of legitimizing. The whole thing is poorly made and embarrassing as a project for the director. Apologist involved are on record saying they saw early version pre-post and the voice was there. But would you really expect a charlatan to show it before he put the effect on. Again, extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. In this day and age, trusting a video tape is just not smart. The woman first found she had a problem during a mass and it coincidentally gets worse during an exorcism. This is presented as good evidence along with her brothers testimony. To wrap up he retells a story where he forgot to bring his camera... The voice now has additional lower pitched voices in addition to the already suspiciously altered voice to really drive it home, again without pointing out how unbelievably important that would be.

xavier-02792 The sound of the posessed woman's voice/screams is worth seeing it, though I found the director's story about his later meeting with the woman at the end of the movie even scarier - if only he had filmed that! Amorth comments that the demons can enter a nearby host after an exorcism, hopefully they can't come through the television to you.

David Ferguson Greetings again from the darkness. In 1971, William Friedkin directed one of my all-time favorite films, THE FRENCH CONNECTION. He won the Oscar for Best Director. But of course that's not the movie which entrenched him as a cinematic legend. Two years later he directed THE EXORCIST, a film that, 45 years later, still regularly appears at or near the top of most "Best Horror film" lists. For most of his adult life (he's now in his 80's), Mr. Friedkin has been associated with exorcisms, and he kicks off this documentary by confessing that he will be attending his first ever actual exorcism ... and will be filming the ceremony. It's a ritual very few of us have ever witnessed, and we learn that more than 500,000 Italians seek exorcisms from a priest each year. The director seems very anxious to take us along on his journey.We get interviews and footage from multiple associated folks: Jeffrey Burton Russell, author of "The Prince of Darkness" and other satanic novels; William Peter Blatty, author of "The Exorcist"; a young Los Angeles priest who simultaneously expresses skepticism while stating he wouldn't want to get that close to the devil; and a couple of Neurosurgeons and some Psychiatrists. There are also interviews with a brother and sister recalling her experience of having a liberating exorcism performed on her, and the titular Father Gabriele Amorth - one of the most beloved figures in the Catholic Church. He was Head Exorcist for the Diocese of Rome for more than 30 years.Whether the movie works for you or not (whether you believe it's real) likely depends on the interview we neither see nor hear. Mr. Friedkin's build up is to the exorcism he attends as Father Amorth performs the 9th exorcism on 'Cristina'. It's May 1, 2016 and there are perhaps 12-15 people in the room, including Cristina's parents and boyfriend. She has struggled with "demonic possession" for years, and the footage is quite startling - especially the audio of the guttural voice from such an innocent looking lady. It's also Father Amorth's 91st birthday and he literally thumbs his nose at the devil. It's after this ceremony where Friedkin claims he was to interview Cristina in a local church. Inexplicably, he doesn't have his camera, so we only hear him tell of the horrific events.Mr. Friedkin directs the film (co-written with noted film critic Mark Kermode) and also acts as our guide through the rituals and beliefs associated with exorcisms. There is a bit of a "Dateline" vibe to the production, though it's a bit surreal to hear Father Amorth proclaim to the evil spirits, "You are banned forever". As has been the tradition for years, religion and science are at odds with the subject. Neurosurgeons label it "delirium", while Psychiatrists call it "Disassociate Trance Disorder". Is it merely a placebo effect caused by religious beliefs, or does Satan exist? Perhaps author Jeffrey Burton Russell says it best: "stay away from this stuff".