Accidental Exorcist

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!

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.

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.

This movie is a GEM and I loved every strange gross minute of it. Unique horror with great performances. It was FUNNY and unpredictable The lead actors facial expressions were subtle and hilarious. So many great lines and it had some fantastic body horror elements. Music was unsettling and artfully placed.

I loved the atmosphere and the main character's decrepit living environment, and the way he dealt with the demons was so funny. First horror movie I've seen in a long time that surprised me and had me putting my phone down. Great job to everyone involved. I hope more stuff like this gets made in our world.

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.