MovieChat Forums > The Exorcist: Believer (2023) Discussion > 50% of all Exorcist films are good!

50% of all Exorcist films are good!

posted a year ago by ReelReviews14 (1221)
13 replies | jump to latest

The ratio is actually fairly decent compared to MOST film franchises with six entries. For example, Terminator only has 2 out of 6 "good" films (the first two, directed by Cameron himself), and Highlander only has 1 out of 6 "Good" films (the very first movie). With Exorcist, the scorecard is:

Exorcist (1973) - Good
Exorcist II (1978) - TRASH
Exorcist III (1990) - Good
Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) - TRASH
Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) - Good
Exorcist: Believer (2023) - TRASH

Unfortunately, if David Gordon Green is "in charge" of the next two, it will probably continue the "TRASH" trend. Sounds like the studio is planning to quietly replace him. But I'm not sure how even a really talented director that makes solid films will be able to do a DIRECT followup to Believer, and salvage the direction the franchise is headed. It would be smarter if the next film was a "stand alone" entry like all the other sequels/prequels, and IGNORED the events of "Believer". Unfortunately they seem to be locked in place doing this "Deceiver" sequel.

[–] Lord Rake (4536) a year ago

I think it's closer to 17%.

[–] BKB (11302) a year ago

The EXORCIST & EXORCIST III are the only 2 that matter, which is less than 50%

[–] CJ43 (8) a year ago

"The Exorcist" (1973) - Great
"Exorcist II: The Heretic" (1977) - Bad
"The Exorcist III" (1990) - Mediocre
"Exorcist: The Beginning" (2004) - Bad
"Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist" (2005) - Bad
"The Exorcist: Believer" (2023) - Bad

[–] ReelReviews14 (1221) a year ago

Not true, Dominion is GOOD! It actually has SUBSTANCE, regardless of the studio execs whining and ADHD generation who thought it was "boring" cuz people weren't getting killed every five minutes. Check out Roger Ebert's review at the time:

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dominion-prequel-to-the-exorcist-2005

[–] CJ43 (8) a year ago

Disagree. I think Dominion is an aesthetic bust. The cinematography and CGI are poor. I also didn't care for most of the acting. The film is devoid of great mood and artistry like Friedkin's masterpiece. I love artistic, slow-burn horror.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1221) a year ago

>> The cinematography and CGI are poor. <<

The cinematography was well done and it had the same cinematographer as Exorcist: The Beginning (Beginning ALSO had decent cinematography, that trashy horror film had a LOT of problems, but the cinematic shots themselves weren't one of them!) In fact, the cinematographer (Vittorio Storaro) is an Oscar winner and widely recognized as one of the best and most influential in cinema history, he did the cinematography on numerous iconic movies, ranging from Apocalypse Now (1979) to The Last Emperor (1987).

Paul Schrader wasn't given the funds to do proper post-production work (the studio just said "fine, whatever!" and took the assembly cut out of storage and released it to placate fans after Exorcist: The Beginning bombed), so that's why the CGI was spotty. And in THAT case, the CGI hyneas and so on are STILL better than the ones in Exorcist: The Beginning, which DID have a proper post-production budget and team in place.

I agree SOME of the acting was bland (The Beginning tried to "fix" that problem), but Stellan Skarsgård & Billy Crawford were terrific and put in solid performances, and THEIR roles were the main ones that carried the film.

For the record, Exorcist creator William Peter Blatty agrees with me. He liked Dominion, and hated The Beginning. :-)

[–] ChiefAlex (72) a year ago

What about the Exorcism of Emily Rose have you seen that one? I haven't seen it, but how was that one compared the films you mentioned above? Except for the original of course because I know nothing will top that one.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1221) a year ago

That's not part of the franchise, and no, I haven't seen it. It's not fair to lump in all the other demon possession movies "inspired" by the iconic 1973 The Exorcist movie, anymore that it would be to rank the Gremlins franchise by including entries from Ghoulies, Critters, and Hobgoblins.

I did see The Pope's Exorcist lately. Russell Crowe was terrific in the title role and I hope he comes back, but the third act of the movie de-evolved into "typical" Hollywood horror flick "fightin' demons" stuff. It would have been better if they had stuck with the real life events.

[–] CJ43 (8) a year ago

Wow, I forgot that the great Vittorio Storaro shot both films. Not his best work. Both films (and most of "Exorcist III") have that 1990s and 2000s sheen look that I'm not a fan of. They lack the mood and atmosphere of the 1973 classic. I like low-key lighting and grain.

William Peter Blatty preferred The Version You've Never Seen to the original cut. I hated the changes and added CGI in the 2000 version. The prequel should have been Part II with Max Von Sydow. He was still young enough without the old age makeup. I found Dominion and Beginning uninvolving and visually unpleasing.

[–] ReelReviews14 (1221) a year ago

>> The prequel should have been Part II with Max Von Sydow. He was still young enough without the old age makeup. I found Dominion and Beginning uninvolving and visually unpleasing. <<

Well, they sort of DID do that for Exorcist II, there were numerous "flashback scenes" of young Merrin doing the exorcism in Africa that was referenced in the first movie. I think they were trying to do "Godfather II" type framing story, but MAN did they drop the ball big time, and it amounted to little more than a glorified cameo for Von Sydow. Plus, whoever edited Exorcist II must have been on LSD or something, it's incoherent.

In any case, by the early 2000s, that train had already left the station. The only way they could do a TRUE Exorcist prequel at that point was to recast the role, and IMO Stellan Skarsgård was excellent casting. He's even Swedish like Von Sydow! He was one of the FEW good things about Exorcist: The Beginning.

One valid criticism of BOTH Exorcist prequels IMO is that the events of BOTH movies don't really match the "Exorcism in Africa that nearly killed him", as described in the first movie. So neither film works as a "prequel" to the Exorcist in that regard. I think the intent at the time was that Fr. Merrin was grizzled veteran of MANY exorcisms in Africa by the time of the events of the 1973 movie, so perhaps he later did ANOTHER exorcism in Africa, one that WAS the exact exorcism described in '73. They might have been gearing up to a sequel to the prequel. Alas, never happened. Shame, I would have loved to see Stellan Skarsgård back as Fr. Merrin a third time.

[–] redban (6776) a year ago

Dominion and the beginning had the same plot . How can one be good and the other bad

[–] ReelReviews14 (1221) a year ago

The same way Rocky V and Creed had the same plot (Rocky is retired from boxing and has no interest in being involved again, until he's convinced to train a young protege and beat the odds), but Rocky V sucked and Creed is great, because they EXECUTED that storyline in vastly different ways.

Rocky V is a tired "formula" sequel that ran out of ideas, so they came up with stuff like "Rocky has a street fight instead of an actual boxing match"

Creed is a very clever spinoff movie that is from the POV of a completely different, new character, but manages to fit Rocky into the story beautifully and tie it into the Rocky universe.

Exorcism: The Beginning is some stupid, dumbed-down "gory" horror film filled with jump scares, aimed at teenagers.

Dominion is a serious, mature, weighty melodrama that focuses on a priest regaining his lost faith.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

The first and third are great. The second is interesting though very uneven... the rest can go in the bin!