ON AIR NOW

LISTEN NOW

Weather

Sponsored By: Two Men and a Truck
cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
85°
Thunderstorms
H 87° L 75°
  • cloudy-day Created with Sketch.
    85°
    Current Conditions
    Thunderstorms. H 87° L 75°
  • partly-cloudy-tstorms-day Created with Sketch.
    78°
    Evening
    Thunderstorms. H 87° L 75°
  • partly-cloudy-tstorms-day Created with Sketch.
    76°
    Morning
    Isolated Thunderstorms. H 83° L 73°
LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest top stories

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest traffic report

00:00 | 00:00

LISTEN
PAUSE
ERROR

The latest forecast

00:00 | 00:00

National
Review: 'Deliver Us From Evil'
Close

Review: 'Deliver Us From Evil'

Review: 'Deliver Us From Evil'
Photo Credit: Andrew Schwartz
This image released by Sony Pictures shows Joel McHale, left, and Eric Bana in a scene from Screen Gems' "Deliver Us From Evil." (AP Photo/Sony Pictures, Andrew Schwartz)

Review: 'Deliver Us From Evil'

Classed up by its cast, "Deliver Us From Evil" concludes with a deliverance from evil in the form of a rip-roaring exorcism, simply staged in a police interrogation room, though goosed up with the usual barrage of digital effects. Routine in nearly every aspect, the movie cannot be accused of holding out on its audience. The evil's delivered, and then dealt with.

Co-writer and director Scott Derrickson's extremely loose adaptation of the book "Beware the Night" (the film's original, less evil title) concerns the book's co-author, New York Police Department sergeant Ralph Sarchie, played in the film by Eric Bana. Initially a skeptic, this death-haunted cop joins forces with a rogue priest with a checkered past, played by Edgar Ramirez, who starred in the Olivier Assayas terrorism biopic "Carlos." Not yet entirely fluent in English, Ramirez clips off the ends of his sentences and burrows into the recesses of his character, letting Bana do the heavy dramatic lifting.

Rather than establishing and then following a straightforward, compact case of alleged true-life possession, as did last year's gem "The Conjuring," "Deliver Us From Evil" finds evil all over the Bronx, where Sarchie works the 46th Precinct and has seen a lion's share of inhumane behavior long before true evil shows up. A prologue finds an Iraq War veteran, Santino (Sean Harris), encountering ominous cave inscriptions scrawled in Latin. A combat videographer, he records the scene until the devil unleashes a swarm of bees, or something, near a pile of human skulls. The footage cuts abruptly to black.

The soldier comes home, alive but demonized. He opens up a house-painting business, and one can imagine the Angie's List description: "Santino's great! VERY intense. He's possessed, so he really does work like the devil."

Derrickson made "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" nearly a decade ago, a rather better example of this genre. As Santino's pernicious influence spreads, several other characters come under his spell. The story sorts through them all, dutifully, beginning with the domestic disturbance call answered by Sarchie and his partner, a smirk in a turned-around baseball cap as portrayed by Joel McHale.

 

An atmosphere of dread is established the old-fashioned way: by placing various children at risk. Sarchie's own past has been stained by his capture of a murderous child molester. Derrickson exploits all this in a half-and-half way; half the time, "Deliver Us From Evil" is genuinely interested in Sarchie's all-too-human demons, and half the time we're marking time until the big exorcism and an ending that keeps the door open for a sequel, should the market demand it.

Read More
VIEW COMMENTS

There are no comments yet. Be the first to post your thoughts. or Register.

The Latest News Headlines

  • Updated at 10:42: The Supreme Court will allow part of the travel ban to take effect; some immigrants will be banned from entering the country.  Update at 10:29 a.m. ET: The  Supreme Court has ruled that it will hear arguments over President Donald Trump’s second executive order banning travel to the United States. Original story: The Supreme Court will rule on Monday whether to hear the challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigration from several predominately Muslim nations. That executive order and the revised order that followed were both challenged in lower courts, which ruled in favor of the states that brought suit, setting up today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Here’s what can happen Monday and some background on the executive order. What is the ban? The original ban was issued on January 27, 2017, and it did the following: - Suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for 120 days - Cut the number of refugees to 50,000 in 2017 - Banned Syrian refugees from entry into the United States indefinitely - Barred immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- from entering the United States for 90 days. How was it revised? The revised order, executive order 13780, removed Iraq from the list of nations included in the ban, allowed refugees already approved by the State Department to enter the U.S. and lifted the ban on Syrian refugees. It was to go into effect at midnight on March 16, 2017. What will happen on Monday? The court will do one of three things Monday. It will either uphold Trump’s ban, refuse to hear the case or say it will hear the case in the fall when the court reconvenes. What happens if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor? If the court rules in favor of the administration, the ban can be implemented within 72 hours. What happens if the justices refuse to hear the case? If the justices refuse to review the case, the lower court rulings will stand, stopping the Trump administration from banning entry into the U.S. based on the country from which a person emigrates. Will the Supreme Court hear arguments? Justices could choose to hear arguments about the ban in the fall. In the meantime, the lower court orders would stand. What is the background? President Trump signed an executive order that would ban refugees and immigrants from seven mostly Muslim countries from entering the United States for 90 days and would suspend a refugee program for 120 days. It would also ban Syrian refugees from entering the country. That order sparked protests around the country and around the world. The states of Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts and Hawaii filed suits over the ban. In three days, from January 28 to January 31, 50 cases were filed against the order. The courts granted a nationwide temporary restraining order that suspended much of the order. The 9th District Court of Appeals upheld the restraining orders. A revised order was issued in March. That order, like the first, ran into legal challenges. A judge in Hawaii suspended the revised order, ruling that if the ban went into effect, it would likely cause 'irreparable injury' by violating protections granted by the First Amendment against religious discrimination. The judge said tweets by Trump suggested that the order sought to ban people on the basis of their religion, and not in the interest of national security, as Trump had claimed.       
  • A 2-year-old child who was critically injured after being backed over by a vehicle around Midnight has died.   According to JSO a family member momentarily lost track of Christopher Jackson while leaving the Mathews Crossing Apartments on Century 21 Drive near Atlantic Blvd.  Jackson was backed over by the vehicle.  Rescue arrived and rushed the child to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries, where he later died.  JSO is now calling the case an accidental death. 
  • A rabbi is among several people in New Jersey who were arrested Monday in raids by federal and state authorities in a multimillion-dollar welfare fraud investigation. >> Read more trending news  Rabbi Zalmen Sorotzkin and seven others are being charged, accused of taking public assistance and defrauding the government of $1.3 million over recent years, law enforcement officials told the Asbury Park Press. Investigators said that the accused had plans that, a source told the Asbury Park Press, “rival the most sophisticated of financial frauds.” Officials said the people involved under-reported their income. In exchange, they were able to qualify for Medicaid, Section 8 housing assistance, food stamps, Social Security disability and Supplemental Security Income, the Asbury Park Press reported. Officials said the accused, who are four married couples, made thousands of dollars more a year than they told program officials. Investigators said they traced illegal money transfers, along with records from private schools for tuition.  Law enforcement officials said they believe that Monday’s arrest will be the first in a series of arrests in a larger fraud ring.
  • In a big legal victory for President Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a pair lower court orders from federal appeals courts that had blocked his plans to bar visitors and refugees from six mostly Muslim countries, allowing most of the travel plan to go into effect immediately. The Court also agreed to set arguments in the fall on the matter, as the Justices wrapped up work for their 2016-2017 term. The announcement means that for travelers or refugees – if they have a relative in the United States, or some other direct tie to the U.S. – then those people cannot be blocked by the Trump Administration from traveling here at this time. BREAKING: Supreme Court will review Trump travel ban, allows it to take effect in most instances. — AP Politics (@AP_Politics) June 26, 2017 But for those travelers and/or refugees without a direct reason to come to the United States, the Supreme Court said the President clearly has the right to deny them entry at this time. “But when it comes to refugees who lack any such connection to the United States, for the reasons we have set out, the balance tips in favor of the Government’s compelling need to provide for the Nation’s security,” the Court declared in a Per Curiam opinion. Those who would qualify for travel to the United States would include: + Students who have been admitted to a university + A foreign national who wants to visit a family member + Someone who has accepted a job in the U.S. + An academic who has been invited to give a lecture. The Supreme Court decision though made clear that immigration groups may not simply add the names of people to their client lists, and try to get them admitted to the United States as a result.
  • The Supreme Court on Monday announced that it would listen to arguments surrounding President Donald Trump's controversial travel ban during its October sitting. >> Read more trending news

The Latest News Videos