THE EXORCIST RETROSPECTIVE

---

September 29, 2023|Articles, The Exorcist Franchise

Beware: the demonic forces of The Exorcist franchise are waiting to possess your mind and soul. From the bone-chilling original film to the sinister prequels and the haunting TV show, this horror series has been striking fear into the hearts of audiences for almost half a century. As we delve into the darkness of this iconic franchise, prepare to encounter supernatural entities, satanic rituals, and unspeakable evil. The Exorcist review series will leave you trembling with terror, questioning your own beliefs, and fearing for your own soul. Are you ready to face the demon? Read on, if you dare...

The Exorcist franchise has been captivating audiences for nearly 50 years. From the original 1973 film, famously deemed “the scariest movie of all time,” to the television series that premiered in 2016, this horror franchise has continued to terrify and captivate viewers.

We here at GhostfaceHorror.com are thrilled to announce a new review series dedicated to The Exorcist franchise. We will be taking a deep dive into all aspects of this iconic horror series, from the films to the TV show.

The original 1973 film, directed by William Friedkin and written by William Peter Blatty, set the standard for horror movies and remains a classic to this day. It tells the story of a young girl named Regan (Linda Blair) who becomes possessed by a demon, and the battle between good and evil as priests try to save her soul. This movie broke new ground in horror filmmaking, utilizing sound design, practical effects, and incredible performances to leave audiences shaken to their core.

Following the success of the first film, a sequel was inevitable. However, Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977) was met with negative reviews and was a box office disappointment. The film again starred Linda Blair, and was directed by John Boorman. It deviated greatly from the original storyline and explored the idea of a psychic connection between Regan and the priest who performed her exorcism.

The Exorcist III (1990) was written and directed by William Peter Blatty, the author of the original novel and screenplay for the first film. The movie takes place several years after the events of the first movie and follows Lieutenant William F. Kinderman (George C. Scott) as he investigates a series of murders that resemble those committed by the Gemini Killer, who he believes to be dead. However, as he investigates, he realizes that the killer’s spirit may be possessing someone new. The film was critically acclaimed for its complex storytelling, horror themes, and performances.

In 2004, two prequels were released that explored the origins of the demon that possessed Regan. The first, Exorcist: The Beginning, was directed by Renny Harlin and starred Stellan Skarsgard as Father Merrin, who originally performed the exorcism. The film was met with negative reviews and was less successful than its predecessor. However, a second prequel, Dominion: Prequel to The Exorcist, was directed by Paul Schrader and starred Skarsgard once again. This prequel was praised for its character development and storytelling and won over many critics who had been disappointed by its predecessor.

The Exorcist franchise was revived in 2016 with a television series that followed a group of people who become embroiled in a new exorcism case. The show, created by Jeremy Slater and starring Geena Davis, Ben Daniels, and Alfonso Herrera, was praised for its similar tone to the original film and for bringing new life to the franchise.

Additionally, our review series is in preparation for the upcoming sequel, The Exorcist: Believer, which has been announced as a continuation of the original story. The new film will be directed by David Gordon Green, known for his work on the Halloween franchise, and will star Ellen Burstyn, returning to her role as Chris MacNeil, the mother of Regan. The movie is set to release in October 2023 and promises to be a fitting addition to The Exorcist franchise.

In anticipation of the new sequel, our review series will provide a comprehensive look at the previous movies and the TV show to prepare fans for the latest addition to the series. We will examine the strengths and weaknesses of each installment and provide our thoughts on what we believe makes The Exorcist franchise so iconic and unforgettable. Stay tuned for our upcoming reviews and join us on this haunting journey into the world of The Exorcist.

October 1, 2023|Horror Reviews , Supernatural and Paranormal , The Exorcist Franchise

Enter at your own risk: The Exorcist, the infamous horror movie that shook audiences to their core, is not for the faint of heart. Released in 1973, the film sparked controversy with its graphic portrayal of demonic possession and exorcism, leading to protests from the Catholic Church and a lasting cultural impact that still reverberates today. With its intense visuals, disturbing sound design, and unflinching exploration of themes like faith and trauma, The Exorcist remains a classic of the horror genre that continues to scare and shock audiences nearly five decades later. Hold on tight, because this ride is not for the weak-hearted.

William Friedkin's "The Exorcist", still regarded as one of the most disturbing and frightening horror movies ever made, achieved instant notoriety and ongoing cultural influence since it was initially released in 1973. The movie, which was protested by the Catholic Church and sparked controversy due to its graphic violence, blasphemy, and themes of demonic possession and exorcism, has become a benchmark of the horror genre, often referenced and imitated by other filmmakers.

At the heart of "The Exorcist" is the story of a young girl named Regan MacNeil, played by Linda Blair, who becomes inexplicably possessed by a demonic entity. Her mother, famous movie actress Chris MacNeil (portrayed by Ellen Burstyn), initially believes her daughter is experiencing mental illness, but as Regan's symptoms worsen, including bizarre behavior, fits of rage, and physical manifestations like projectile vomiting and body contortions, Chris turns to Catholic priest Father Damien Karras (Jason Miller) for help.

Father Karras, who is undergoing a crisis of faith after the death of his mother and is facing his own inner demons, initially resists the idea of possession, but after witnessing Regan's condition worsen, agrees to conduct an exorcism with the help of the senior priest, Father Lankester Merrin (Max von Sydow).

What follows is an intense and gruesome depiction of the exorcism ritual that would test the limits of any audience's endurance. Some of the most infamous scenes in the movie include Regan's head spinning 360 degrees, her projectile vomiting of green bile, her levitation from the bed, and her self-mutilation with a crucifix. Many of these scenes were achieved using sophisticated special effects and makeup that still hold up to this day, and some were achieved using practical stunts and techniques that put the actors' safety at risk.

In addition to these graphic visuals, "The Exorcist" is known for its disturbing sound design, using sound effects like growls, animalistic noises, and the ominous score by Mike Oldfield, to unsettle viewers. The use of silences and quiet moments is also noteworthy, as director Friedkin crafted several scenes of suspense and fear that rely on the absence of any sound.

What makes "The Exorcist" more than just a carnival of gore and jump scares is its unflinching exploration of themes like religious faith, doubt, guilt, and trauma. The characters of Father Karras and Chris MacNeil are portrayed as complex and flawed individuals who struggle with their own personal issues while trying to confront a supernatural threat. The movie does not shy away from portraying the deep emotional pain and trauma that these characters experience and how it affects them on a physical and psychological level.

"The Exorcist" is a movie that still retains its power to shock and frighten viewers even after nearly five decades. It is a masterful combination of horror movie tropes, compelling storytelling, and technical proficiency that defines the horror genre for many fans and filmmakers. It is not for everyone, and some may find its graphic depictions of violence and blasphemy too much to handle. However, if you have the stomach for it, "The Exorcist" is a must-watch classic of cinematic horror.

In the end, whether you view it as a work of art or a stomach-churning nightmare, The Exorcist remains one of the most influential and iconic horror movies of all time. Its legacy has not diminished with age, and its ability to put fear into the hearts of audiences continues to leave an indelible mark on the genre. The movie's legacy can be seen in the countless imitators and tributes that have followed it, but there will always be only one true original. So if you're brave enough to delve into the world of demon possession and exorcism, buckle up, turn down the lights, and let the unforgettable experience of The Exorcist consume you.

Looking for a way to add some thrills to your routine? GhostfaceHorror.com has you covered! With our latest horror reviews and news, you'll stay up-to-date on all the creepiest trends. As an exclusive member of our inner circle, you'll gain access to bone-chilling content that will make your heart race. We're the perfect choice for horror lovers who are always on the hunt for new content. Don't keep the scares to yourself - share our articles with your friends and fellow fans to join our growing community. Subscribe now for the ultimate horror experience!

4 out of 5 stabs 🔪🔪🔪🔪
FINAL THOUGHTS: "The Exorcist" may be a movie that is not for everyone, but it is a testament to the power of horror films to leave a lasting impression on audiences. With its iconic visuals, disturbing sound design, and complex themes, "The Exorcist" remains a masterpiece of cinematic horror that continues to captivate and terrify viewers to this day.

October 4, 2023|Horror Reviews , Supernatural and Paranormal , The Exorcist Franchise

Do you dare journey into the eerie world of Exorcist II: The Heretic? For decades, this sequel has been shrouded in infamy, labeled as a cinematic failure and a disgrace to the legacy of the original film. However, there are those who believe that this movie deserves another chance, that its strange and surreal approach to horror deserves to be recognized for the mesmerizing and haunting experience it offers. Come, enter the abyss of Exorcist II and discover the darkness that lies deep within – but be warned, once you venture in, you may never come back the same.

In 1977, John Boorman directed Exorcist II: The Heretic, as a sequel to the groundbreaking horror movie, The Exorcist. The original film was nothing short of a phenomenon that sparked a cultural conversation around its themes of demonic possession, faith, and the battle between good and evil. However, with notably high expectations and the desire to live up to its predecessor, Exorcist II: The Heretic, faced immediate backlash and rejection.

Critics and audiences were disappointed with the sequel, but in hindsight, it seems that they failed to understand the movie's quirky and artistic vision. The film’s ambition deserves appreciation as it took a unique approach to the horror genre, diverging significantly from the style, approach, and tone of the original. While The Exorcist was a claustrophobic, character-driven horror movie, Exorcist II was an expansive, bizarre fantasia on religious themes with wild, surreal imagery, and strange sets.

Exorcist II: The Heretic follows Father Philip Lamont (Richard Burton), who is sent to investigate an exorcism that went awry, causing the victim’s death. After performing the investigation, Father Lamont visits Regan (Linda Blair), the possessed young girl from the first film, who is now a teenager. The two become linked, and as their stories intertwine, they form a connection that surpasses reality.

The sequel’s most innovative aspect is its focus on metaphysical themes—memory, identity, and possession. Through its stories, the movie suggests that the two central characters may be experiencing shared delusions, which result in a spiritual awakening. Instead of relying on gore or suspense to scare the audience, Boorman used the movie's surrealist elements to create an unusual and unsettling atmosphere.

One of the stand-out scenes in the movie portrays the fascinating and trippy synchronizer, a device that connects the minds of people undergoing therapy. The synchronizer presents a space where Father Lamont and Regan are able to communicate on a spiritual level, effectively depicting Boorman's vision of what a shared dream between two spiritually linked people might look like. It is a device that seems improbable and peculiar, but it adds to the film's overall surrealist theme and allows for the interweaving of its intersecting narratives.

As with any horror film, the setting and design plays a significant role in creating the mood and atmosphere. While the original film used practical location shoots, Exorcist II took a different approach as it could not shoot in the original house due to legal issues. Instead, Boorman recreated the house in a soundstage garnishing it with a grandiose and elaborate design to enhance the dreamlike quality of the film. The cinematography by William A. Fraker is another element worth mentioning. The usage of lighting, shadows, and compositions, along with Ennio Morricone's pounding score, creates an otherworldly setting that adds to the film’s surrealist atmosphere.

While many criticized Exorcist II: The Heretic's divergent approach, viewing it as a fiasco in comparison with the original, some appreciate the movie's unique vision that offers its distinctive contribution to horror. The bizarre, wild, and surreal experience portrays John Boorman’s attempt to explore the darkest corners of faith and trauma, an ambitious undertaking that aimed to push beyond the limits of generic horror tropes with diluted scares.

In conclusion, to approach Exorcist II: The Heretic as merely a horror sequel is to misunderstand the film entirely. Viewers need to recognize John Boorman's intention to offer something different, stranger, and wildly ambitious in his attempt to create a surrealist film that uses horror elements. The film demands an entirely different viewing experience, foregoing the objective and logical approach to storytelling, in favor of creating a unique, subjective experience worth revisiting for its creativity alone. Ultimately, the movie is a strikingly surreal and visually stunning portrait of horror that offers a fresh, bizarre take on The Exorcist's themes.

As we emerge from the surreal landscape of Exorcist II: The Heretic, we can't help but feel a sense of admiration for its audacity and experimental spirit. While it may have stumbled in its execution, it achieved something rare in the horror genre: a genuinely original and thought-provoking experience. Who knows, perhaps this article has convinced you to give this divisive sequel another chance, to appreciate its unconventional approach and embrace its unsettling and surreal imagery. Or, perhaps, you prefer to stay away from its eerie and uncertain realm, content in the safety of traditional horror movies. Either way, we hope this journey into the unknown has given you a new perspective on the power of surrealism and a renewed appreciation for the complexity and daring of the horror genre.

Prepare yourself for bone-chilling horror news and reviews by subscribing to GhostfaceHorror.com. Join our inner circle for exclusive access to fear-inducing content delivered directly to your inbox. As a horror fan, you can't afford to miss out on our in-depth reviews and insights. Share our articles with other horror aficionados and become a part of our growing community. Don't be left in the shadows - subscribe to GhostfaceHorror.com now.

3 out of 5 stabs 🔪🔪🔪
FINAL THOUGHTS: Exorcist II: The Heretic may have been a critical and commercial failure upon its release, but it presents an ambitious and surreal approach to horror that deserves recognition. With its unique vision and thought-provoking themes, the movie offers a strikingly original and visually stunning portrait of horror that demands a different viewing experience.

October 6, 2023|Horror Reviews , Supernatural and Paranormal , The Exorcist Franchise

The Exorcist III, released in 1990, is a film that shouldn't have worked. It came 17 years after the original, based on William Peter Blatty's 1983 novel Legion, and with Blatty serving as writer and director. At the time, sequels were not obligatory, nor a given, even for films like The Exorcist, which had made a ton of money. Nevertheless, Blatty's idea managed to surprise audiences and is better than most people remember.

Blatty's original concept for The Exorcist III was a non-sequel psychological thriller, centered around detective William Kinderman, a character familiar to fans of the original movie. The producers of the film, Warner Bros., had other ideas. They pumped out the notorious flop Exorcist II: The Heretic, while Blatty's idea gathered dust.

In the meantime, Blatty turned the story into a best-selling novel called Legion. The novel boasted a different plot from the original idea, but elements from that original concept were adapted into the final screenplay.

The film was greenlit later, and Blatty was once again attached as writer and director. Though the new version dropped some of the book's subplots and characters, the core of the plot remained intact, and Blatty even preserved a lot of the dialogue.

However, the studio insisted that the film be arbitrarily named The Exorcist III, and that there must be some kind of demonic possession element to the story. Blatty was hesitant at first, but as the film's budget increased to $11 million, he relented.

Blatty's finished film tells the story of a serial killer who's terrorizing Virginia, but the film's focus is firmly on Lt. William Kinderman. The detective is now investigating a gruesome series of murders that have a strange connection with events that happened in the previous film. In the original movie, it was Kinderman who initially investigated the murders by a young girl named Regan. The subsequent investigation of what is actually a possession case would lead Kinderman to become involved with exorcist Father Karras and, ultimately, with the possession of Regan herself.

Though there are a few moments of over-the-top horror, the majority of the film is a slow-burning thriller. Kinderman's obsession with the murders is the driving force of the narrative, and the film is grounded by George C. Scott's excellent performance as the detective. Blatty takes his time with the set-pieces, allowing for build-up and anticipation rather than cheap thrills.

The Exorcist III is better than most people remember because it eschews the traditional tropes that made the first movie so famous. Gone are the exorcisms and the projectile vomiting, replaced by a more psychological approach that explores the depths of the human mind and its ability to cope with evil.

The film is a sequel to the original Exorcist film that follows Lt. Kinderman, played by George C. Scott, as he investigates a series of murders in Georgetown, which have all the signs and symbols of the deceased Gemini Killer, whose execution took place seventeen years ago. Additionally, the plot sees Father Damien Karras, who died in a fall down the stairs during the original Exorcist, reappear in the form of 'Patient X'.

Blatty's film boasts an incredible cast, including the likes of George C. Scott, Ed Flanders, and Brad Dourif. Scott's portrayal of Kinderman, in particular, is a standout performance. Scott brought his brand of gruff charm to the fore in the role and made the character his own. As mentioned, Ed Flanders played the role of Father Dyer, and despite being a different performer, his portrayal of the role was excellent. Furthermore, Brad Dourif was the perfect choice to play the role of the demonically driven Gemini Killer. Dourif's dark and lurching performance drew viewers into the character's twisted mindset.

Blatty was excited to sign on to direct Exorcist III and immediately began the casting process. However, he faced a setback when he realized that Lee J. Cobb, who had played Lt. Kinderman in the original film had passed away. This left a major role to be filled, but Blatty eventually decided on the equally gruff and venerable George C. Scott to take over the part. Scott had reluctantly acted in horror films over the preceding decade, but liked the fact that Exorcist III was something different than what he had done before.

Another setback came when William O'Malley, who played Father Dyer in the original, declined to reprise the role. Blatty instead cast Ed Flanders to take over the part, and it turned out to be an excellent choice. Flanders had a natural talent for portraying smart, funny, and wholly believable characters and delivered a better performance than O'Malley had in the original film.

The cast of Exorcist III was composed of some of the best character actors around, most of whom had appeared in Blatty's Ninth Configuration. These actors, including Scott Wilson and Brad Dourif, gave memorable performances that brought the film to life. Their dialogue remained believable even as the circumstances around them grew increasingly outlandish.

Blatty's use of location was another highlight of Exorcist III, as he filmed the majority of the movie in Georgetown, his long-time home. Furthermore, he managed to evoke fear and anxiety in brightly-lit rooms and was not afraid to add intentional humor to a serious horror film.

Exorcist III was a film focused on character and detail. Each scene was meticulously crafted to create a seamless whole, and even subtle touches like the old woman with Alzheimer's crawling across the ceiling went unnoticed until the third viewing. Blatty had an eye for the details and managed to bring together an eclectic group of actors to create a film that was unlike anything else coming out of Hollywood.

Blatty had initially meant for Exorcist III to be an entirely different story from the original two films, but the studio executives intervened with changes that shifted the narrative. One of the changes they insisted on was introducing an exorcism scene at the end of the film, despite there being none in the original script. Blatty was not happy with this addition but had no choice but to comply with the studio's demands.

Another request from the studio was to bring back a cast member from the original film in a bid to market Exorcist III as a true sequel. Blatty had initially approached Jason Miller to reprise his role as Father Damien Karras, but Miller's struggle with alcoholism had left him incapable of remembering anything but the shortest lines of dialogue. Instead, Blatty eventually worked out a way to use Brad Dourif to cover much of Miller's dialogue in the film.

Exorcist III was not a conventional horror film. It was more focused on the characters and storytelling rather than jump scares or shock value. Blatty did an excellent job of keeping the audience engaged with his skilled direction, and the actors did an excellent job of bringing the complex characters to life. However, despite Blatty's exceptional work on the film, the studio's changes likely hurt its success in the box office.

Aside from the performances, several other elements make The Exorcist III a standout horror film. Blatty's use of location is impeccable, as he has the ability to evoke fear and anxiety in bright, well-lit rooms. The droll comic banter between Scott and Flanders became one of the strongest elements of the film, as it was natural and authentic, coming off like a conversation between two old friends who've known each other for forty years. Blatty's capacity to drop genuine and intentional humor into a movie often taken as a serious horror film is also notable.

The plot of the film takes its time to unfold, and there is no sense of urgency in the storytelling. This style works well, allowing viewers to become immersed in the character and detail of the film. The film takes a meandering approach to its story as it focuses more heavily on its characters than its plot. This makes the film more of a character study than a traditional horror film.

The film's stand-out moments include a superb ten-minute build-up to the decapitation of a nurse and the famous endless flight of stairs in Georgetown, which played an iconic role at the end of the original Exorcist. In The Exorcist III, the staircase takes on a life of its own, and though quite tangible, exists here on screen as a memory. Other notable moments include the old woman with Alzheimer's crawling across the ceiling of the psych ward day room like a spider, completely unnoticed as Blatty keeps the viewer focused on the conversation taking place center screen.

Despite strong critical reviews and an incredible cast, the film ultimately underperformed at the box office due to confusion among audiences and producers' meddling. The film's slow pacing and lack of focus on exorcisms (there were none in the original cut) led producers to intervene and demand that Blatty add an exorcism scene to the film. As a result of the meddling, Blatty went back to the studio and added a twenty-minute contrived exorcism scene, which ended up impacting the film's pacing and flow. 

However, despite its flaws, The Exorcist III remains a brilliant character-driven horror film that focuses on the power of dialogue and performance rather than jump scares and gore. Unfortunately, despite Blatty's excellent work on the film, Exorcist III underwent major changes before its release. The studio decided to add a contrived exorcism scene, and several other unnecessary additions that left the final product lacking. Exorcist III was an exceptional film that deserved better, but the studio's changes likely hurt its success in the box office.

Overall, The Exorcist III is a remarkable achievement on the part of Blatty and the cast and crew. It may have taken more than a decade for the movie to hit the big screen, but the end result is a film that deserves a second look.

Subscribe to GhostfaceHorror.com for the most up-to-date horror reviews and news that are sure to scare you silly. As a subscriber, you get exclusive access to bone-chilling content delivered straight to your inbox, and you'll become part of our inner circle of horror enthusiasts. Join us to stay informed and avoid being left in the dark. Share our gripping articles with fellow horror lovers to be a part of our community. Don't miss out on our reviews and insights if you're a fan of horror.

4 out of 5 stabs 🔪🔪🔪🔪
FINAL THOUGHTS: If you're a fan of horror movies, Exorcist III is a must-watch film that is highly underrated. Its unparalleled storytelling, exceptional cast, and impressive use of detail create a terrifying, engaging horror experience that deserves recognition.

October 11, 2023|Horror Reviews , Supernatural and Paranormal , The Exorcist Franchise

Ladies and ghouls! Are you ready for a spine-tingling review? We're diving deep into the world of demonic possession today! We're comparing two movies released in 2004-2005, Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: A Prequel to The Exorcist. Which movie will leave you trembling in fear? Which one will have you saying "meh, I've seen scarier stuff in my nightmares"? Buckle up, because we're about to find out. Let the battle of the devilish prequels begin!

In 2004 and 2005, two horror movies, Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: A Prequel to The Exorcist, were released around the same time. Dominion was the original film, but reports suggest that it did not meet the producers’ standards. So, they had The Beginning made and released it instead.

Yet, the two movies were eventually released, and critics and horror fans at the time were debating which of the two was superior. While some preferred Exorcist: The Beginning, others were fans of Dominion. In this article, we will delve into a detailed comparison of the two movies.

Firstly, Exorcist: The Beginning, directed by Renny Harlin, follows in the footsteps of the original 1973 film and sets up the final blows with grace and dignity. The movie includes creepy little things and little bits of mindfuck, as well as a few scary scenes. Still, the movie's psychological effect on viewers was what made it a classic. The audience could never forget the fact that a demon had possessed a normal little girl and a normal family.

Exorcist: The Beginning includes themes that were represented and copied from the original movie, which gives viewers a sense of history. For example, the clocks stop mysteriously on the same numbers as they did in the original movie, and Pazuzu’s head appears, driving the story as it did in the first film.

Furthermore, Exorcist: The Beginning shows how its characters devolve from humanity, and there are some subtle hints that might go unnoticed at first, but have a huge impact later on. Some viewers found the movie to be predictable, but it still managed to create an atmosphere of fear and suspense that is hard to replicate.

On the other hand, Dominion: A Prequel to The Exorcist, directed by Paul Schrader, is criticized for not following the story of the original. It also has nothing to do with the original story, which might be confusing for viewers unfamiliar with the Exorcist franchise. In addition, it fails to capture the same psychological impact of the original movie and relies more heavily on blood and gore.

Moreover, Dominion's demon is hokey, and the movie's scary parts try too hard to be abstract and fail to create any sense of real fear. It also lacks certain aspects and characters that the audience enjoyed in the original movie, which reduces the overall impact of the story.

Many viewers found that the absence of Pazuzu had deflated the story. Father Merrin, a central character in the original movie, is not compelling in Dominion and acts out of character, making him less likeable and harder for the audience to empathize with. As a prequel to The Exorcist, Dominion falls short of meeting fans' expectations.

In conclusion, Exorcist: The Beginning is the better of the two movies when compared to Dominion. It has the same atmosphere of fear and suspense as the original movie and manages to remain loyal to the franchise’s themes. Dominion, on the other hand, damages the franchise’s brand name by failing to deliver the same emotional conflict as the original movie and relying more on cheap scares and gore. Ultimately, the enduring legacy of Exorcist: The Beginning underscores the powerful impact of psychological horror, while Dominion is just a forgettable footnote in the franchise's history.

Well fiends, there you have it - our comparison of Exorcist: The Beginning and Dominion: A Prequel to The Exorcist. In the end, it was clear that Exorcist: The Beginning prevailed as the superior film, delivering the same psychological impact as the original. Meanwhile, Dominion failed to capture the tone and essence of the franchise, leaving viewers feeling lackluster and disappointed. The battle of demonic prequels is over, but the legacy of The Exorcist franchise continues to haunt and thrill audiences to this day. Until next time, keep the lights on and never utter the words "I'll be right back" in a horror movie.

Prepare yourself for frights beyond your imagination by subscribing to GhostfaceHorror.com and stay abreast of the latest updates on horror news and reviews. Avail yourself of exclusive access to spine-chilling content directly delivered to your inbox, be part of our inner circle, and ensure that you don't get stranded in the dark. For those who love horror, missing our reviews and insights should be out of the question. Don't forget to share our articles with your horror-loving peers and join our community to experience the terror in togetherness.

1 out of 5 stars 🔪 (Both Films)
FINAL THOUGHTS: Although Exorcist: The Beginning may be comparatively better, it's not saying much as both films, unfortunately, fall short of expectations. Neither of these movies manages to grip the viewer, and instead, the audience is left bewildered, wondering why the films didn't hit their mark.

October 12, 2023|Horror Reviews , Supernatural and Paranormal , The Exorcist Franchise

As I sit here typing out my review of The Exorcist: Believer, I can't help but feel a chill run down my spine. Perhaps it's the ghostly presence of the demonic entities that haunt this film. Or maybe it's just the eerie feeling of disappointment that lingers after viewing what was supposed to be a worthy sequel to one of the most iconic horror films of all time. Whatever the cause, I can't shake the unsettling feeling that this film has left me with. While it attempts to bring a new spin to the franchise, it ultimately falls short of its paranormal potential. So, let's dive right in...

David Gordon Green's The Exorcist: Believer tries to bring something new to the classic horror franchise, but ultimately falls short. While the film boasts a solid cast, including Leslie Odom Jr., it lacks the depth and exploration of faith that made the original such a standout.

The film opens with a drawn-out prologue, introducing us to Victor Fielding (Leslie Odom Jnr) and his pregnant wife Sorenne (Tracey Graves), on holiday in Haiti and caught up in a terrifying earthquake. Sorenne is sadly killed, leaving Victor to bring up his daughter Angela (Lidya Jowett) alone. Thirteen years later, Angela and her friend Katherine (Olivia O’Neill) disappear on the way home from school and after a frantic search, reappear three days later with no memory of what had happened to them. However, that horror was only beginning, with both girls having brought something back with them from their time in the woods… something that wants their very souls… or so we are led to believe.

The power of William Friedkin’s adaptation of William Peter Blatty’s seminal tale of a young girl possessed by a demon was not just in the shock and awe of the possession itself, but in the exploration of faith through the characters surrounding Regan and her demonic hitchhiker. From the strange, other-worldly opening that lets us know there are still places in the modern world that feel ancient, to the dawning realization that faith in the new magic of modern science was wholly misguided, and on to the struggle of the ephemera of ‘belief’, even for a man of God, when faced with the painful realities of the much more tangible ‘life’, these lofty themes were explored with a set of characters that included the demon.

Unfortunately, Gordon Green's sequel fails to capture any of these elements. The demons in the film are characterless and cruelly dull, representing nothing more than a set-piece. There's nothing in the narrative to explore these events remotely through a modern lens, and the film is little more than a cliched and generic roll-out of trope after trope after trope. The story flirts with having something to say about modern religion but quickly sidelines it in favor of the usual howling wind, viscous gloop spurting, and violent bodily harm that is literally how every exorcism movie since 1973 ends.

The much-vaunted cameo of Ellen Burstyn feels lazily tacked on, with no real place in the narrative, whatsoever. Its inclusion seems like little more than an attempt to prove that this is a ‘genuine’ sequel to the original classic, which, while it might be in name, certainly isn’t in terms of character or even quality. The same can be said for the film's cynically timed needle drop of Mike Oldfield’s Tubular Bells, as much a character in the first film as any of the actors. While it’s good to see these nods to nostalgia, they come across as empty sugar rushes in an otherwise vacuous film.

Gordon Green is a competent director who can create a handsome and technically solid-looking film, complete with good performances from his cast. He knows his way around a jump scare or two and can easily deliver exactly what modern audiences crave from their Friday night horror films. In this case, all the required iconography boxes are checked, with the studio requiring 2.65 jumps per ten minutes delivered with audio stings loud enough to shake the foundations of the theaters, and even throwing in a crowd-pleasing cameo or two for good measure.

However, while The Exorcist: Believer may please some viewers, it fails to live up to its title and heritage. It tries to bring something new to the table but ultimately falls back on predictable jump scares and gore. The film lacks the exploration of faith and character development that made the original so impactful, and the demons are little more than faceless antagonists. Fans of the franchise will surely be disappointed, hoping for much better from a sequel to one of the greatest horror films of all time.

In conclusion, if you're expecting a thought-provoking exploration of faith and the human psyche, you'll be sorely disappointed with The Exorcist: Believer. However, if you're simply looking for a generic and forgettable horror flick to pass the time, then it might just float your boat. While it's one thing to honor a classic, it's quite another to do justice to its memory. Sadly, this film does not quite live up to that feat. Overall, I give The Exorcist: Believer 2 out of 5 stab wounds. With that being said, I'll be heading to bed now, ready to face any spectral visitors that may choose to haunt my dreams tonight.

Stay ahead of the curve with the latest horror reviews and news by subscribing to GhostfaceHorror.com. Get exclusive access to bone-chilling content delivered straight to your inbox and become part of a community that shares your love of all things scary. Don't miss out on our expert insights and in-depth reviews of the hottest horror flicks. Share our articles with your friends and fellow horror fans to spread the word and be a part of the pulse-pounding conversation. Subscribe to GhostfaceHorror.com today to avoid being left in the dark!

2 out of 5 stabs 🔪🔪
FINAL THOUGHTS: The Exorcist: Believer is a disappointing sequel that fails to capture the essence of the original. While it boasts a solid cast and technical competence, it lacks the depth, exploration of faith, and character development that made the original a cultural touchstone.