The Exorcist: Caricature. Believer? How’s about unBelievably bonkers. The soulless derivative sequel to the original Friedkin masterpiece manages to be everything and nothing simultaneously. It’s a bastardization of the source material that demonstrates a gross lack of understanding on so many narrative and theological levels. Honestly, this movie could easily be Scary Movie 6.66 because of how unintentionally laughable it is. The characters are flat, the plot is all over the place, the tone is criminally uneven, and it’s disrespectful of the thoughtfulness of the original at every chance it gets. Representation matters. If David Gordon Green did not have plans to respectfully (albeit creatively) represent spiritual warfare and demonic possession, then he should’ve chosen another property to destroy.
When his daughter, Angela, and her friend Katherine, show signs of demonic possession, it unleashes a chain of events that forces single father Victor Fielding to confront the nadir of evil. Terrified and desperate, he seeks out Chris MacNeil, the only person alive who’s witnessed anything like it before.
I saw a comment on Twitter today calling for a petition to keep Green away form the horror genre, and I concur. Other than his surprisingly good Halloween H40, he has proven to be inept when helming a legacy horror project. William Friedkin’s The Exorcist remains the definitive possession film. While Friedkin was critical of the new religious right in the 1970s, he was still respectful of the rite of exorcism; he crafted a cinematic story about loss of innocence, crisis of faith, overcoming fear, the limitations of science, and the obstacles of religious bureaucracy. But at the end of the day, the film was grounded in Christianity wherein we find the rite of exorcism. Similar practices may be observed in other cultures and religions, but if you’re going to depict the rite of exorcism specifically, then the story needs to be respectful of and grounded in Christianity–not become a mockery of.
Ellen Burstyn is completely wasted in this film, and her character is in no way connected to the Chris MacNeil in the original. Last we say her, she underwent a journey of faith, going from someone mostly agnostic to someone that believed in the existence and power of God after the events of the original Exorcist. Now, she has no belief system and is rather laissez fair about faith, exorcism, and the like. She is a character without any conviction, therefore she has no drive and lacks spiritual grounding in any real sense of truth. If what you believe doesn’t matter, then there is no urgency to believe or batter personal demons in order to battle the real demon in the possessed girls. Furthermore, if it really doesn’t matter what one believes than it devalues all belief systems. Just because you don’t believe doesn’t mean it’s any less true. Besides the hodgepodge of MacNeil’s worldview, her character is greatly lacking in any dimension that would even help to hint at some modicum of compelling character.
When a movie tries to be everything to everyone, then it becomes about nothing and is for no one.
The cardboard character profile isn’t limited to Chris MacNeil, all the characters in this movie are lacking in anything that would make them compelling for the audience. I cared not whether any of the characters lived or died. Personally, I would have preferred the demon win and kill all the useless, lifeless characters. Although, that would only interest the nameless demon if the characters (or this film) had a soul. As it stands, the film and characters therein are soulless. Speaking of the demon being nameless, this is in direct conflict with the rite of exorcism. Whether one chooses to believe the demon possession (is incredibly rare but) real, the demon always has to be named, because having the demon’s name gives the exorcist power over the demon. The least Green could have done is give the demon a name. We are led to believe that it may be Pazuzu, because it recognizes MacNeil, but the name is never uttered by any character.
I found the movie unintentionally funny. With a few tweaks, it could have easily been Scary Movie 6.66. The plot and characters are just so unrealistic and ridiculous that the story and experience plays out at comedic proportions. Moments that were supposed to be scary were funny, moments that were supposed to be empowering were ludicrous, and the showdown was something straight out of Avengers: End Game. The Exorcist: Believer is Avengers meets The Rite meets a SyFy Channel original movie. The only meaningful connection this movie has to the original is the name, Ellen Burstyn, and a brief vomit-inducing cameo by Linda Blair. I’ve seen many other possession films that were way more interesting, entertaining, and thoughtful than this one.
Do yourself a favor, and if choose to watch this travesty, you should rewatch the original to cleanse your cinematic spirit of the demon that this movie will force upon you. While I suspected Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Orlando featured the The Exorcist: Believer house as a means to get people interested in the movie, clearly it was a move to compensate for how bad this movie really is. If it wasn’t for the house, I imagine far fewer people would want to see this abysmal use of a legacy intellectual property.
Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.
R.L. Terry ReelView 