Film Review — The Exorcist: Believer
Another legacy sequel no one asked for or wanted proves thoroughly mediocre
David Gordon Green is in serious danger of becoming to horror what JJ Abrams is to science fiction: The reboot guy. Having recently flagellated the deceased equine of the Halloween series, he’s now turning his whips to The Exorcist (1973), which has already suffered the ignominy of truly dreadful sequels and a superfluous TV series. Yes, alright, I’ll admit The Exorcist III (1990) has a few decent ideas, especially in the director’s cut, but let’s be honest: No one ever wanted or needed a sequel to The Exorcist. Still, cynical executives (or cynical algorithms) are hellbent on giving us not one but three legacy sequels, bringing back Ellen Burstyn in the process. Is the first of these, Believer, any good?
Short answer: No. It opens in Haiti, with a shot of fighting dogs that deliberately evokes the prologue of the original film. Throughout this, there are many shots designed to recall the iconic imagery of William Friedkin’s classic, but I won’t exhaustively list them. As per most legacy sequels, there’s a lazy reluctance to create anything new that will prove visually memorable in its own right. And as usual, that results in me wishing I was watching the original instead.
