Surprisingly, after so many years of relative oblivion, the filmmakers again remembered the work of William Peter Blatty and the film adaptation of the same name. The fashion for sequels has strangely captured the industry and the minds of directors, and now the old franchises, which have already seemingly disappeared into oblivion, are finding a second life, jumping from the dusty shelves to say: “We can still give heat!” Well, maybe it is, only the continuations of popular films, once thundered so loudly that the hype around them did not pass for a long time, are usually several times weaker than the original.
So what do we have? An old story that seems to claim a new interpretation. And to be honest, this movie could be a chic social drama -- good, it's all about it. But the creators decided, 'Why not make a sequel? Let those who know appear in it, but first let it lead to it. And, let's go. Let's go. The plot, on the one hand, seems logical - teenagers are rarely obedient, and parents at the age at which the main characters are - two school friends - are not authoritative for young people. But let’s look at the situation from the other side. They just went somewhere after school, and nobody missed them. It was only at the end of the day that the parents began to sound the alarm. The father of one of them is so worried about his daughter that he didn’t even bother to call her after his last lesson. If he can't pick it up in person because he's working, at least he could call. In his relationship with his daughter, everything is built on trust. Which is still strange, given the fact that the girl is a teenager, hormones play, fantasy whips over the edge, the child should be controlled. And, as is usually the case in such films, no one noticed that the girls go after school clearly not home. And then they disappear somewhere, something happens, and then there is a twist from the category of “Pet Cemetery” by Stephen King.
And here begins a complete misunderstanding of the plot moves. What actually happened to my friends? Well, why do you know that - just then one of the girls will say something (without spoilers), and everyone will sort of understand. But at what point did what the girls wanted go wrong? This is not explained in principle. Then more. On the horizon through the scheme of “familiar acquaintances” there is an aged heroine of the very first “Exorcist” Chris McNeill. Her motivation is unclear - whether she wants to atone for her daughter Regan, or since the famous demon was expelled from her daughter, she suddenly became addicted to exorcism-related adrenaline. She comes face to face with evil, BUT! What evil? In the first film, there was a specific demon, and here someone possessed the girls, and who exactly is unknown. We are suddenly made to understand that the entity inside our friends is directly related to Chris and Regan. However, again, this is just a bare fact. A request for hunch. Can you explain that?
But let's get to the pros. The tense atmosphere is masterfully woven into the narrative, it shows that in fact irritation, anger, stress, negative emotions have long been part of our daily lives. The devil's essence in the picture is a metaphor for all these human qualities. Next. The ending surprised with its mercilessness and hopelessness. That’s probably what this movie needs. Acting is on top. Link to William Friedkin's original film The Exorcist.
And can this picture be called a new quintessence of evil in cinema? I don't think so. But the tape is definitely creepy, sometimes even very terrifying. And the main horror is not in the essence of the film, but that the dark side of the human soul can outweigh the light. Yeah, the movie is what it is. Perhaps a smart solution would be to exorcise the demon from the girls in the presence of Chris and Regan - although perhaps it would look like fan service. The film is both good and bad at the same time. And that's the beauty of it.
7 out of 10
Friedkin died in August 2023, The Believer came out in October. Did they show him anything or did they do it anyway? In short, a disgusting sequel to Friedkin’s legendary film. I don’t understand why Greene is allowed (for the second time) to join the famous horror franchise.
I agree, everyone has the right to try. Green tried Halloween (think about it three times in a row) and it didn’t work out. It didn't work, you don't know how to play horror, please vacate the director's chair. Go out and shoot the third season of “Pineapple Express” or “Pineapple Express 2”. Yeah, he's a comedian who somehow thinks he's a horror director.
Green is not Fulci, it's old Lucio who could have successfully moved from Celentano comedies to massacres, not everyone is given. Green is such a talentless director that his picture is saddening already in the first minutes. It's as boring and as fake as a central actor's Oscar nomination. It’s fun to watch all these nominees show their complete unfitness through one or two films.
The funniest thing is that Greene slips two obsessed girls at once, an African-American and a white-American. Why it was necessary to add the second – a mystery (it is really superfluous, could at least 10 obsessed girls shoved, what difference), because at the forefront of Greene puts it African-American storyline. If you remove all the mysticism from the film, then we get a sad story about an unhappy father who is trying to raise his daughter alone, since mommy is not.
You understood about the actor, but I repeat – they play poorly, i.e. not Morgan Freemans or Sam Jacksons, but the worst is still the direction of Greene. When the horrors begin, you want to turn off the movie, because it’s not horror, but a circus on wheels. Especially outraged scene in the house of one of the girls when Burstyn came there. She is so stupid and stupid, she is terrible.
Speaking of veterans. Burstyn is ashamed, of course, but she does not hide that she didn’t care about Greene and his movie. Burstyn came for the money. Why the great ninety (!) actress money – the question is, has not yet accumulated. Joke. Seriously, there's nothing to catch except Burstyn.
“They did something that allowed the unclean to enter them, that’s how demonic possession works,” she said. Really? What's the point of all this incompetent dialogue? What a meaningless movie. That is, if you do something bad (though why immediately bad, maybe good), then the demon will come. Did Regan do anything bad (or did she do anything at all) in the first movie? No, look at Friedkin's movie.
Pazuzu was a coward, but he had one gift: through his cowardice, Pazuzu managed to show Max that humans were actually weak. Pazuzu was right. He took a child, an ordinary child, to deliver his message. When Max got the message to Pazuzu, he was afraid.
In the same movie, there is no Pazuzu! It's not him, you don't have to cheat and wink, like maybe he is. It's just two things, ah heh heh, nothing more. Pazuzu said, “I came from another world.” That is, there is a whole world where such comrades are full. In short, I don't want to understand this useless nonsense. There was a whole crowd of exorcists, some shamanic aunt, Lydia from The Handmaid's Tale and what else does anyone know?
Get Green out of the horror! And then some more franchise will continue (only not “Gremlinov”, not “Gremlinov”, a-hee-hee, Gizmo – caca!).
2.5 out of 10
The story of two curious sneaky schoolgirls who went to scour the woods, trying to summon the spirit of the deceased mother and... disappeared. Three days later, they are found in the farm shed, but something is wrong with the maidens, they begin to behave strangely.
The continuation of Friedkin’s cult horror, where various elements were gathered together in a pile, and nothing original or fresh was added to them. This creates a superficial appearance of respect for the original film, and the main characters are little remembered and cause scant emotions. And although the picture is very trying to return the atmosphere of the original, problems with pace, sudden changes in characters and missed opportunities for storytelling do not allow you to fully reach your potential.
In my opinion, a controversial reboot, besides this is the first film of the future trilogy, giving a sluggish secondary. But if you drink alcohol to mindlessness, forgetting about the masterpiece of Friedkin, then this tape is quite suitable for a one-time viewing for lovers of stories about exorcism, or just those who have a high-quality licked picture in priority over the script.
Moral: Exorcism is a clever process in which the devil leaves the body and your money leaves your pocket and goes to the priest.
6 out of 10
The fact is that the very classic “Exorcist” William Friedkin, who is called almost the best horror film in the history of Hollywood, who received an Oscar for the best adapted script, we have never watched. Therefore, it is scary to imagine what a shock would await us, watch this “direct sequel” right after the impenetrable classic. Now we are there in amusing indignation from the fact that we fell for the trick, when the trailer turned out to be much more interesting than a full-length film.
Seriously, the trailer inspired a lot of confidence in the project, especially its forbidden ending, when two girls caught a single rhythm of heartbeat, then the screen whitened as, in the frame two, sorry, terrible faces catch up creepy, curtain. As a result, after watching the film, we have to state that there was noise, go ahead. There and $ 400 million for the purchase of rights, and publicly announced trilogy, and the invitation of Ellen Burstyn could not but create a lovely resonance in the information field. We were told that life remained the same. No trilogy needed.
Because of this design, by the way, comes to the surface the main problem is "The believer." The format of the story “wait in the next series” is repulsive, why in the so-called first part of the interesting current is the beginning with the disappearance of two schoolgirls. Panic, misunderstanding, fear, anxiety cover the small town, the audience is not yet shown what happened during this time with angelic beings. Unfortunately, then from the moment of their bright detection, a sluggish something begins, which is not much that does not frighten, but also does not delay. Waiting for the spectacle.
What's the problem? David Gordon Green and Danny MuBride took a risk, of course, but what significant they could offer in our time, when so many films about exorcism managed to come out on both large and small screens. If everything worked out with Halloween at one time, because the story concerned, first of all, a down-to-earth maniac with a hint of something supernatural, then in the case of the Exorcist, external invisible forces easily took a serious role. Tell me, where are you going to turn here after the cult?
Boring characters, sluggish intrigue, the absence of something really diabolical, demonic do not help to create a special atmosphere of unsinkable horror that would permeate to the gut that successfully forgot about watching the film in the cinema. Perhaps, over time, you will want to reconsider the “believer” and suddenly change your opinion, like for the first time you did not notice the obvious advantages. So far, doubtful. It remains to wait for "Five nights with Freddie" to get a semblance of a pretty horror movie. John Carpenter, David Lynch. .
The new Exorcist film from director David Gordon Green and from Blumhouse studios, who were also responsible for reimagining Halloween. It is clear what this film is about.
Studio Blumhouse spent $ 400 million to get the rights to a new trilogy, which in theory should be a sequel / reboot of the first part. In fact, the same scheme was with Halloween, but without the large costs of buying rights.
The film was originally scheduled to be released on October 13, but was moved to October 6 due to the concert film Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour.
The film follows photographer Victor Fielding and his daughter Angela, who suddenly disappears with her friend Catherine. Victor realizes that his daughter and her friend are missing and contacts Katherine's parents to find them. The girls were eventually found in the barn. Despite the injuries, they appear relatively normal and are taken home. After a while, it turned out that the girls are possessed by demons, and both families will undergo an exorcism.
It's a disgusting movie. There are no words to describe how horrible this movie is. It's a very crooked and bizarre attempt to refresh a series that doesn't work on all fronts. And as a sequel, this film is weakly related to the original, because apart from the presence of Chris McNeil and her daughter Regan, there is nothing here.
Speaking of Chris McNeil. The creators invited Ellen Burstyn to reprise her canonical role. In addition, judging by the trailers, it seems that her character will play an important role in the plot. But after watching, I want to say one thing. Why does this movie need Chris McNeil? It is useless and plays no role in the story. It’s just there because it’s a sequel to The Exorcist, not another passing exorcism movie.
The film is a failure on all fronts. It's a weird curve of ideas that don't work at all. And the ending just burys this movie completely. In addition, due to the studio’s plans to create a whole trilogy, this film does not feel complete, but feels like a scrap that even ends in a half-word.
I’m still silent about the fact that the whole second half of the film is just a crazy circus with horses, which is hard to watch. And the rite of exorcism does not withstand normal criticism. Even in the parody comedy that stalked the original film, like Scary Movie 2, and then more logic than in the sequel-request of the cult classic.
The film is quite sterile and slick, like most Blumhouse films. And also with terrible editing. The attempts to recreate moments from the original, for example, scenes of the appearance of the essence of the demon in the twenty-fifth frame, are especially terrible. And all this is achieved by mediocrely made and mounted screamers, which are not only primitive, but also talentless. Even in the mediocre Astrals and Conjuring Screamers, though primitive, but made many times better.
The actors in the movie are faded. Nobody can even be singled out. Even having Ellen Burstyn doesn't save the day. There is nothing to play here.
Of course, there were a couple of less good aspects to the film. For example, a good concept with two obsessed girls from two families with different religious views. In general, a curious concept, but implemented terribly, because apart from the disclosure of the drama of the protagonist with his problems there is nothing here. There is no development of this concept at all.
By the way, the budget of the film is $ 30 million, which for the studio, which is famous for successful in the box office horror, shot for pennies, very good numbers. I don’t even know where that budget went. For even the original, which cost less, looks much better than this soulless sterile craftsmanship.
Bottom line: The Exorcist: The Believer is a disgusting movie that's hard to watch. The film is hastily made, poorly written and poorly played.
“The Exorcist: The Believer” didn’t make me believe it.
Poor David Gordon Green, who grabbed a hat in his direction for the Halloween trilogy, tried to rehabilitate and touch another cult franchise - The Exorcist. In fact, it was very bad.
If you describe the movie in one word, then porridge. When creating this kind of picture, each team member should understand that in the yard of 2023, people have seen a sufficient number of films about exorcism, surprising this is now a rather difficult task. Apparently very ...
The main problem is that there is no psychological pressure and heat of events, but there are a bunch of meaningless scarecrows that only make you roll your eyes. The first 30 minutes worked like something interesting and “delicious”, well-staged scenes, internal tension, but then you like watching a cheap horror film that was shot in a couple of days.
I respect DGG, he has his own style and view of movies, the same Halloween 2018 came out chic. Here the director had a lot of ideas in his head, but in the end he himself did not decide what he was shooting. To compare with the work of Friedkin does not make sense, half a century has passed, even thought that Greene will be able to give something that will surpass the original. For who? For what? Why? And why? These questions swirled in my head while watching, but there are no answers. Actors are wooden, obsessed girls somehow pull on their shoulders this misunderstanding.
Of the advantages, it is worth highlighting the visual component. The soundtrack holds the bar, and the final act saved the entire film from falling asleep.
The verdict. There are two more films to come, as the trilogy was originally planned. At the moment it is an empty and soulless sequel, a total disappointment.
3 out of 10