The Exorcist: Believer (2023)

The review calls it a watchable but unoriginal chiller that pays homage to the 1973 classic without breaking new ground in the genre. It praises the nods to the original, sound design, and Ellen Burstyn’s return while noting the ending suggests potential for more.

The critic finds the film a serviceable but schlocky and empty cash-grab sequel that wastes Ellen Burstyn's return and is unlikely to satisfy fans of the original. It offers some goofy entertainment and inventive imagery in the double exorcism scene thanks to committed young performers, but is trapped between serious and silly.

The critic finds the film a sloppy, CGI-heavy farrago that fails to summon any of the original's menace or scares. It is poorly cast and not remotely scary, with Satan seeming asleep on the job.

The critic finds the film a wussy, inclusive reboot ruined by Hollywood greed and stupidity that swaps primal scares for a less offensive version of possession. It defeats the point of the franchise with an attentive-parent solution to evil.

The film starts strongly with a sinister atmosphere and intriguing setup but loses tension with gimmicky callbacks and an underdeveloped script that settles for creepy or nauseating moments rather than true terror.

The review calls the sequel an exhausting, noisy affair that relies on jump scares and chaos rather than genuine shock or suspense, making the demonic elements tiresome quickly. It praises the attempt at a broader community-focused message over strict Catholicism but faults the shallow characters and lack of originality.

The critic finds the film weighed down by the legend of Friedkin’s original and gets nowhere near its holy dread, with off pacing that accelerates without building menace. It singles out the multi-faith approach to possession as the only point of interest, though even that feels unlikely to succeed.

The film begins with promise in its restrained setup and atmosphere but quickly descends into numbing familiarity, recycled Blumhouse effects, and unoriginal excess. The diluted Catholic elements and lack of daring compared to the 1973 original are singled out as major disappointments.

The critic finds the film too busy and uninvolving as a possession movie that doubles the victims but offers little dread or depth compared to the original. It is slickly professional with capable young performers but disappointingly cautious in its approach to the source material's themes.

The sequel opens promisingly but ends in an unholy mess, relying on studied homages and regurgitative nods to the original that feel crude next to Friedkin's classic.

The critic describes the reboot as a craftsmanly but cautious retread that trots out familiar tropes without dread or transgressive power, feeling like Dread Lite. While the opening builds some pull through trauma and the inclusion of Ellen Burstyn adds presence, the film lacks danger and feels overly safe and conventional.

The first half effectively builds believable dread without cheap scares, but the second half collapses as the film fails to innovate on exorcism tropes and avoids the overt Christian mythology that defined the original. It shows just enough promise to ultimately disappoint.

The critic calls it the best Exorcist movie since the original, praising its atmospheric tension, emotional core, strong performances especially from Leslie Odom Jr. and Ellen Burstyn, and moving sequences amid the horror.

The film is an entertaining sequel that deftly merges elements from the 1973 original while delivering a head-spinning reboot with a double twist. Ellen Burstyn's return as Chris MacNeil lifts the proceedings considerably, and the young cast delivers strong performances amid the horror.

The critic calls the film a soulless horror sequel that fails to recapture the original's magic through an empty escalation with two possessed girls instead of one. It scatters focus and does a disservice to returning character Chris MacNeil.

The critic finds the film a generic and unoriginal knockoff that fails to capture the depth of the original, relying instead on clichés and jump scares. They single out the lack of ambition and originality as the main complaint, noting it has nothing consequential to say about faith or the material.

The film is competently dramatized and occasionally startling but ultimately mediocre, running away from any real depth in favor of exploiting franchise IP. It tries to secularize a Catholic story through a non-denominational lens and inclusive exorcism but lacks the ambition or power to make it interesting or scary.

The critic finds the film the most boring and uninspired version of The Exorcist, stripping away the series' unique elements around possession to focus only on a regular exorcism. It loses its grasp on evil by sidelining God and tradition, making the climax tedious.

The critic finds the film lacks conviction and fails to deliver genuine scares or metaphysical depth, playing like a hollow haunted-house ride with maudlin messaging.

The critic praises how the film brings humanity to exorcism tropes and unites different religious groups in its third act against a common foe. It leans on heart and optimism despite not matching the terror of the original.