The Exorcist: Believer

There are moments in this borderline incoherent mess of a movie in which fans may be convinced that its sole purpose is to try making the original follow-up, 1977’s legendarily godawful Exorcist II: The Heretic, look positively genius by comparison.

They need to stop making Exorcist movies. We don't need any more!

A rock solid first half -- character-driven, strong build of dread, and successful at conveying the sheer terror of watching a loved one, especially a child, slip away & feeling helpless in the fight to get them back. But then it becomes a forced sequel.

It never gets close to recreating the miasmic chill of William Friedkin’s 1973 classic, or generating any fresh frights of its own.

... To tackle a prestige project that’s steeped in Christian iconography and biblical allusions by simply defanging it with kindness is beyond pointless.

It requires a rare ineptitude to take what is famously one of the most terrifying movies ever made, recycle pretty much everything (including Tubular Bells on the score) but neglect to include the scares.

The film poses a number of questions in terms of faith, choice, and the impact of trauma, but doesn't delve into any of them. It hops from concept to concept, from character to character, and refers to the source material in a way that feels hokey...

For its entire first half Believer is a moderate success that does not need a link to The Exorcist at all.

A sizable measure of cinematic sacrilege is on display in this needless sequel.

Despite the efforts of the director - responsible for the failed new 'Halloween' trilogy - the film meets the minimum requirements to be of interest. [Full Review in Spanish]