Directed by David Gordon Green (Halloween (2018); Halloween Kills; Halloween Ends) — Screenplay by Peter Sattler and David Gordon Green — Story by Scott Teems, Danny McBride, and David Gordon Green.
Based on the 1971 William Peter Blatty novel of the same name, William Friedkin’s 1973 film The Exorcist is often cited as one of the scariest films ever made. It is a brilliant film with unforgettable imagery, lines, and performances. Though what constitutes as being scary is ultimately subjective and can change over time, I think everyone with a working understanding of film history would agree that it is a culturally significant and iconic work of filmmaking that frightened audiences back then and, frankly, still does. Through sequels, attempts to recapture the immense power of The Exorcist largely failed. The original direct sequel Exorcist II: The Heretic is largely regarded as one of the worst films ever made, and attempts to make a prequel in the mid-to-early 2000s led to two versions of the same film, neither of which are remembered favorably. The one and only time it has worked — at least to some of us — to carry on with The Exorcist on the big screen was in 1990 when William Peter Blatty stepped behind the camera to craft a sequel with The Exorcist III, which features the always watchable George C. Scott in a lead role, as well as an unforgettable and effective jump-scare. Now, in 2023, studio heads have spent $400 million to distribute a sequel trilogy starting with this film, The Exorcist: Believer, from director David Gordon Green, who famously directed the recent Halloween sequel trilogy, which, like with this film, was also a Blumhouse-Universal collaboration. Now, while I wanted to like it, Green’s Halloween trilogy was a pretty significant disappointment to me. Similarly, I really wanted to like The Exorcist: Believer, but it, ultimately, doesn’t do enough to set it apart from other films like it. It’s a disappointingly inert start to the Exorcist sequel trilogy.
David Gordon Green’s The Exorcist: Believer opens in 2010 in Haiti, where Victor Fielding (played by Leslie Odom Jr.) and his very pregnant wife (played by Tracey Graves) are on holiday. While separated from one another, the 2010 Haiti earthquake hits and Victor’s wife is severely injured. The doctors tell Victor that only the mother or the child can survive and that he must make a choice. Thirteen years later, in the present day, Victor is raising their daughter Angela (played by Lidya Jewett) on his own, and he is very protective of her. However, one day, Angela goes missing after having left school with her good friend named Katherine (played by Olivia O’Neill). Victor and Katherine’s parents are naturally worried sick, and so a manhunt ensues. When the girls are finally found, something about them is different — soon they start to show signs of being possessed. Though initially skeptical, Victor is eventually convinced to reach out to Chris McNeil (played by Ellen Burstyn) who knows firsthand what it is like to have your child be possessed by a demon.
Critically and with audiences, David Gordon Green’s The Exorcist: Believer has received a little bit of a bruising early on. I’m not quite as harsh on it as some critics are, but I am quite critical of many decisions related to this film, which, ultimately, does contain several visual references to the original film — just like it also, as expected, sometimes relies on the original iconic musical theme. Visual and musical references are to be expected with legacy sequels such as this one, but where this film ends up missing the mark is largely due to the poor execution of the final act, its concerning dialogue, its use of legacy characters, and a deficiency of new ideas carried out in a satisfying way. And, I suppose, most, if not all, of these issues occur in the second half of the film. Indeed, I would say that the first half of the film — or, at least, until they start introducing legacy characters — is the strongest half of the film. That said, I thought one moment towards the end of the film was disturbing and bleak to such an extent that I thought it really worked for the film. In the first half, Green does an excellent job setting up the film to feel like a blend of exorcism films, Denis Villeneuve’s Prisoners, and something like Sophie’s Choice. In that first half, Green sets the tone right, it looks right, and it feels like a proper modern legacy sequel made by a competent filmmaker with a vision. There are sequences in which Green does a really good job of visualizing how parents can sometimes struggle to control their children — and that type of parental anxiety feels like it is right at home in this franchise. The first half is not without issues, though. Chiefly, it doesn’t sit right with me that an American film has taken a real-life tragedy in Haiti and repurposed it for its prologue. It is an insensitive and unnecessary inclusion.
Then, however, it gets to the more tricky half of the film. Ellen Burstyn is outstanding in the original film, in which her performance is pivotal to making it all work. It was a huge ‘get’ for the makers of this legacy sequel to have her return in this film, but, based on the way she is utilized in this film, it certainly doesn’t feel like they had all that much of an idea of how they would use that character in the first place. Without getting into specifics of what happens, I’ll say that how her character is written in this film (and written out of pivotal late scenes) is utterly perplexing. Chris McNeil should not feel like an afterthought — Burstyn deserved way better material. Another aspect of the film that made me scratch my head is that this film, which is named ‘The Exorcist,’ does not really focus on an exorcist. The Catholic priest in this film also feels like an afterthought, which is just as baffling as the decisions regarding Chris McNeil. I will say that one of the interesting ideas of this film is to not merely rely on one method for the exorcism or one type of religious representative, but, then again, this intriguing aspect is disappointingly not taken to the degree that might’ve made this film’s major ‘exorcism’ sequence feel fresh. It would have genuinely been interesting to see representatives of several other major religions (i.e. those not represented in this film), but the filmmakers seemingly didn’t have the guts to go that far with their otherwise fairly interesting idea.
I have noticed that some people have derided the idea that one of the legacy sequel’s primary changes is that now there isn’t just one possessed young girl, instead there are — pauses for dramatic effect — two of them. But I don’t think that is as much of a problem as others seem to think. What I do, however, think is quite unfortunate is that the film fails to fully give that dual perspective. While Victor and Angela are fairly well-realized characters, I thought the film ought to have spent more time on Katherine and her parents for the final act’s major moments to function as well as intended. That said, both Lidya Jewett and Olivia O’Neill — who play the two possessed girls -. play their parts impressively.
In spite of a mostly promising first half, David Gordon Green’s The Exorcist: Believer is a disappointing legacy sequel that doesn’t know what to do with its legacy characters, doesn’t have an actual exorcist as a priority inclusion, and ultimately fails to be anything more than yet another copycat of the original film, and — just to be clear — there are several better and less trite possession-centric films out there. While there is a scene that includes the kind of bleakness that sends a chill down your spine, the film is devoid of memorable scares. Time will tell if this legacy sequel trilogy will ever give us a sequel that even comes close to having the same power that the original possesses, but, unfortunately, The Exorcist: Believer isn’t it.
5 out of 10
– Review Written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen.
I'm Jeffrey Rex 