'The Exorcist: Believer' Review: An Immediately Underrated Drama Horror Hybrid
This film, and soon, it seems, all franchise horror reboots, cannot be mentioned without discussing David Gordon Green (DGG) in the same breath. The Exorcist: Believer marks his fourth film set in a continued horror universe of old; three of which are Halloween, and the newest the aforementioned Exorcist legacy sequel. It’s just become his niche at this point, though not in a negative way; DGG is very good at making these films.
Despite what critics have told you thus far, his newest is no exception. The Exorcist: Believer is subtly, yet quite deeply, in line with the original film. Though not as overtly nasty as the 1973 classic, Believer is almost as painfully saddening. The film is often hopeless, drowning in sweat and blood, snarling at any positive influence or ideal. There is no good received without losing something for it; everything has a price. DGG digs into these old narratives and retrieves their core. Occasionally, it comes out a little chipped and a bit dirty, but it’s there nonetheless. He gets what he needs to get, and that’s clear in the storytelling.
Though, as far as his work goes, Believer isn’t in the upper echelon of pure, uncaring dedication to gutsy stories. The immediately misunderstood Halloween Ends is nearing its one-year anniversary now, still entrenched as an embarrassment of some kind when, really, it’s the most akin to Carpenter’s first Halloween film of any of the sequels. Not perfect, but unbelievably singular. Believer doesn’t go as far as that film does, which makes sense, that’s a huge risk. Regardless, in trying to keep a foot in all camps, the final product suffers quite a bit.
Weirdly, in over-committing to being a stringent Exorcist revival, the inclusion of the regardless ever-lovely Ellen Burstyn makes this film’s second act its absolute worst, and one of the biggest problems it faces. Every time the film feels like it’s on the verge of a breakout, it tracks back to remind you of its roots; mind you, its roots (and those who grew them) could care less nowadays. If Believer took the same mindset, only essentially attaching itself to the original and expanding on all its own unique ideas at play, it would be a better film and sequel for it (like Halloween Ends).
The narrative is wishy-washy, but visually, Gordon Green and his team excel. Conversations are often made intentionally interesting with varied cinematography alone, and the scare sequences, spurred by snappy, rapid editing, are shot (mostly) with a trademark sense of contained space and energy. The film doesn’t scare often (we’ll get to that) but when it does, it really goes for it. The expected exorcism finale is especially one to match. DGG goes all out; the story finally sheds the unneeded weight and bursts into a chasm of intensity. Vile imagery in every frame, words of malice sneered through the spitting and sputtering of our possessed protagonists. Believer, in lieu of the occasional compelling moment, fully earns your faith for the first time. That stretch will go down as unforgettable, and may demand a few re-watches for it alone.
Still, the entire thing just isn’t consistently appealing, and before the last scare, never comes close to such heights. If the first aft were one-of-a-kind, or did something new for the genre, perhaps it could come together with the third to overcome the malignant second. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case. The film opens on an undisguised callback to the original film and, from there, does only what it must. Decency is a bit of a curse in this case. If the second act were sufficient, this would be a perfectly fine first, but alas. All that discussion of acts and structure simply highlights the film’s multi-mind in that manner. It never really commits to anything, and therefore ends up with no more than a fragment of its own identity.
Even so, the absolute clobbering the film has received in mainstream criticism is perhaps the most random, misplaced anger that side of the industry has produced in a long while. Social media is packed with such hate, too, most often through empty buzzwords and people who seem to pretend that they knew William Friedkin, and know that he’d decisively hate the new film. This mass crusade really started before the film even released; it was dead on arrival, at least on that front. It seems that Gordon Green has simply garnered a sort of bad faith with most people, which is odd, considering he’s the only person to touch legendary horror icons and not ruin them completely (see the dastardly Nightmare on Elm Street and Thing remake/prequel).
The horror genre was born to incredible ingenuity in filmmaking and storytelling. A fresh, frightening craft that was defined in its early days by advancement. Now, the formula has somehow become the standard. Unless a film fully hits the mark, the effort is condemned to an impossible extent. The Exorcist: Believer does enough to earn respect from all viewpoints, but especially from fans of horror, and even the first film.
Jason Blum called the film “the biggest risk” he’s ever taken, and that may be true. On top of a $30 million dollar budget (fair on its own), Blumhouse paid $400 million for the rights to the Exorcist name in the first place. With a price tag like that and two planned follow-ups, the next film already having been subtitled Deceiver, Believer’s success is crucial for all involved.
No matter where that scenario goes though, from a purely artistic standpoint, The Exorcist: Believer is a fine achievement. It understands the horror standard on which it’s based to a notable degree, offers more than a few memorable moments, and delivers on being more than basic blockbuster horror. It isn’t a home-run, but the genre needs films like these; straight-up slow-burns that play to their strengths, even if that means accepting their weaknesses, too. Go in with an open mind, and David Gordon Green may just impress you with this sneaky horror drama.