The last time Hollywood tried to make a sequel to the 1973 horror classic “The Exorcist,” it became two incomplete movies. In 2002, Paul Schrader, acclaimed writer of “Taxi Driver” and director of “Mishima,” was hired to direct a prequel that would tell the origins of the titular exorcist. A hellish production ensued, plagued by significant studio demands, re-shoots and eventually the firing of Schrader himself. Today, you can choose to watch “Exorcist: The Beginning,” a cheap-looking slog credited to director Renny Harlin, or “Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist,” a painfully dull approximation of Schrader’s original vision.
Over 20 years later, we’ve received “The Exorcist: Believer,” a modern-day sequel directed by David Gordon Green, hot off his okay-at-best “Halloween” sequel trilogy that concluded last year. Despite raising some compelling questions about the inner workings of an exorcism, the film feels like it was edited within an inch of its life. With story threads that feel severely abridged, forced emotional arcs and a criminal lack of scares, the final product feels nearly as incomplete as the prequel films.
The film begins in Haiti, where Victor (Leslie Odom Jr.) and his pregnant wife Sorenne (Tracey Graves) are vacationing. A sudden earthquake places Sorenne in critical condition, forcing Victor to choose between saving his wife or his child. 13 years later in Georgia, his daughter Angela (Lidya Jewett) and her friend Katherine initiate a ritual to try to speak to Sorenne from beyond. After three days of the girls’ absence, they return home possessed by an unknown evil, causing tensions to rise between the two families desperate to save their daughters.
“The Exorcist: Believer” is a film rich with big ideas. While it does adhere to the classic horror sequel convention of “the same thing but bigger” (see: “Evil Dead II” or any “Friday the 13th” entry), the filmmakers are eager to call into question the role of organized religion in exorcism. The secular Victor and Katherine’s devout Catholic parents grapple over the most effective way to address the evil. The conflict is dropped by the time the exorcism must happen, featuring both Catholic rites and imagery that evokes Haitian Vodou. The opportunity to explore the nature of faith, an element of the original film that still feels poignant, was missed. Instead, we only get some evocative imagery and cheap plot resolutions.
As in the recent “Halloween” trilogy, Green also brings back the lead from the original film, Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil. As soon as she shows up, it’s as if the story has been paused. Her presence could be completely removed with little effect on the plot. She is used as a prop to remind viewers of the original without weaving her into the story like Jamie Lee Curtis’s Laurie Strode. It’s a genuine bummer to watch, given how accomplished Burstyn is.
Taking another page from his “Halloween” trilogy, Green tries to tie the horror of the film to the ravages of real-life rage and trauma. The urge to ascribe a direct metaphor to the possession feels forced, as if the filmmakers are embarrassed to make a horror film about the supernatural. One character even expresses regret over an abortion she had, lending the film an awkwardly situated pro-life angle. The demand for an “elevated” horror makes the characters speak in moral platitudes and, worst of all, makes the thrills less thrilling.
Despite the messiness of its’ story, “The Exorcist: Believer” is still watchable thanks to its cast and visuals. Odom Jr. gives a quietly layered performance, and Jewett has some stellar moments that sell her descent into evil. Ann Dowd — in an oddly similar role to her character in “Hereditary” — also shines, making the script’s awkward moments feel human. Shot by Michael Simmonds, the whole film has a beautifully honed color palette that makes the visceral makeup and effects stand out. The value of a good-looking production cannot be underestimated when talking about horror.
If we are to learn anything from “The Exorcist: Believer,” it is how special that original film is. The late William Friedkin’s classic is astoundingly effective, with a simple but thematically-rich story that still terrifies audiences. Friedkin immediately distanced himself from any of the film’s sequels, for which he was hilariously vindicated in 1977.
The finality of the film seems to defy franchising, although 1990’s “Exorcist III” has experienced a significant reappraisal in recent years. Despite occasional glimmers of cleverness, the latest entry makes the case that the 21st-century “Exorcist” sequel may be truly cursed.
Thomas Machacz can bev reached at [email protected].
