The Exorcist: Believer was released worldwide one day
ago and already I feel – no pun intended – dispirited about the
exceedingly negative critical response. Did I love the film? No. But I
certainly liked the experience. I thought the film was respectable and I
certainly felt engaged. I appreciated the slow build. Moments that appeared
corny in the trailer (the church scene, the flickering lights) were very
effective in their full realisation.
Why see – or why construct, even – a new Exorcist film?
It can never have the shock or horror value of its illustrious original, sure.
But what were the other attractions of The Exorcist? Creepiness,
intensity, a great sound design, pathos, nuance, strong performances – and The
Exorcist: Believer has all of these.
In a way, Believer is the film you would have expected
the first Exorcist sequel to be (rather than the florid tonal-reset that
Exorcist II: The Heretic actually was): the filmmakers abundantly keen
to showcase another possession and cameo some of its original cast, but a
little more tentative in going for the shocks (how exactly do you top
masturbation with a crucifix?) and a little less delicate in pushing a spiritual
message.
I’d welcome a trilogy, as Universal apparently has planned. (But
God knows if these reviews will kill such plans…over to you, movie-goers.) David
Gordon Green’s Halloween trilogy emerged as an interesting exploration of
small-town traumas - as much as the genre prerogatives can allow, anyway -
which albeit ultimately earned the wrath of a fanbase who believed each of the
three films should place Michael Myers front and centre. Green hasn’t been forgiven
yet, and The Exorcist: Believer isn’t ground-breaking enough to give him
a reprieve.
Or, worse still, may deny him another trilogy.