The Exorcist: Believer.

Review #2099: The Exorcist: Believer.

Cast: 

Leslie Odom Jr (Victor Fielding), Ann Dowd (Ann), Jennifer Nettles (Miranda), Norbert Leo Butz (Tony), Lidya Jewett (Angela Fielding), Olivia Marcum (Katherine), Ellen Burstyn (Chris MacNeil), Okwui Okpokwasili (Dr. Beehibe), Raphael Sbarge (Don Revans), and Danny McCarthy (Stuart) Directed by David Gordon Green (#1151 - Halloween (2018), #1752 - Halloween Kills, and #1906 - Halloween Ends)

Review: 

In the beginning was The Exorcist (1973), and the directorial word was with William Friedkin and the written word was William Peter Blatty. As you probably already know, the novel came about because of a story that Blatty heard about a teenager that had suffered possession from the Devil before undergoing an exorcism. To put it mildly, it was one hell of a good time in atmospheric quality that was made by a craftsman with striking belief in what they were doing when it came to suspense and the "mystery of faith, the mystery of goodness, that mystery which is inexplicable, but it's there." For better or worse, no other film with the Exorcist label has come even close to following it as a sequel or even a prequel. The 1977 sequel was made by someone who vehemently rejected doing the original, while Blatty's 1990 feature was meddled by executives for the ending. Exorcist: The Beginning (2004) and Dominion: Prequel to the Exorcist (2005) is a tale for another time to pick apart. Anyway. One wonders if you thought this was going to be a good film even with hearing that it would apparently be the first of three new Exorcist films. I believed that there was a flicker of hope, because Green did manage to make one successful Halloween film that seemed like the best of the shovel-load of the previous sequels. Of course, he made two inferior films immediately after (Ends was so frustrating that I wrote two thousand words about it), but I had my hope for even the most basic average quality. In theory, a new Exorcist film could have opened the door for trying to blow the doors off all of those other films about exorcisms and possessions that have followed in the wake of the original. Maybe there was something useful to say as the 50th anniversary of the original film was this year, even with the passing of William Friedkin. The screenplay was done by Peter Sattler and David Gordon Green, while the story was done by Scott Teems, Danny McBride, and David Gordon Green.

Congratulations, we have the worst Exorcist sequel since Exorcist II: The Heretic. I would say that Gordon Green should be ashamed of himself for making such a mediocre movie, but I am not sure if he actually would have shame at the idea of making yet another hack sequel to a horror franchise. One detects the belief of trying to play both tribute and one-upper when it comes to Believer, which goes from mildly bland in its first half to a climax that is somehow less scary than a homeless man talking to you about Christ while smelling of alcohol. Friedkin never saw the sequels, but I think his statement about them proves doubly correct here, what Believer does in its "attempt to do is to defrock the story and to send the thing up.” When it comes to acting, it reminds of a bland family drama. It mildly involves the viewer, because the initial setup (after a snoozer prologue) is two children that wind up going missing before turning up with burns on the feet and a strange affliction. There is no sense of tension with these actors, even with Odom trying his best to deliver a performance of someone of challenged faith. You might wonder where Burstyn comes in to play as the one returning actor from the original (well, not the only one...), and oh look, a main character of a previous film being found to have written a book on their previous experience, haven't seen that before. I imagine the paycheck was great for such a shallow role that lasts all of a couple of minutes, because it surely proves that even Academy Award winning actresses can flail in films that don't give them a useful role just like everyone else (such as say, Linda Blair from the second one). It is amusing that the film does fine with its effects but finds nothing when it comes to sacrifice or suspense. Why should we care about what happens in this film with these people when it doesn't have the fortitude to do anything to challenge the perception that this is just a worthless retread? One would have better ethical dilemmas when debating whether to donate $1 or $5 to their receipt than what they see here. Unlike the do-gooders that bloated words about the 1973 film having an R rating rather than an X rating, there won't be a soul here that even care that this is R-rated, because the teens and adults have seen better.

You might wonder why I feel a 5 is necessary for this film. Well, I wanted to be fair and take a nap before debating the merits of calling it either "not quite good enough in mediocrity" or "not even mediocre enough to maybe recommend". Every compliment I could give the film seems like a back-handed one when thinking back to other better films one could watch in 2023 or in their archives. So what if the film looks decent to view? So what if the actors don't detract the quality in acting? So what, so what, so what, this film is crap. At least crap like Blood of Dracula (1957) have the excuse of rushing through production to entertain audiences as their reason to be fast and cheap, but this is a multi-million-dollar budgeted film that serves as yet another violation of not understanding why the original film was as powerful and entertaining as it was. The original was made by a believer that knew how serious it was to treat its story with dignity to go with useful effects that managed to even make a medical procedure seem frightening to view. This film is made by people who should know better but only seem to make a case for people like me to call them hacks, pure and simple. I cannot imagine seeing another one of these in the theater, but heaven (or hell) knows horror films are always ripe for surprise. 

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Oh look, a 2023 horror film that doesn't suck: Saw X.

Harriet.

Review #1982: Harriet. 

Cast: 

Cynthia Erivo (Araminta "Minty" Ross / Harriet Tubman), Leslie Odom Jr. (William Still), Joe Alwyn (Gideon Brodess), Clarke Peters (Ben Ross), Vanessa Bell Calloway (Rit Ross), Vondie Curtis-Hall (Reverend Samuel Green), Jennifer Nettles (Eliza Brodess), Janelle Monáe (Marie Buchanon), Omar Dorsey (Bigger Long), Tim Guinee (Thomas Garrett), Zackary Momoh (John Tubman), Deborah Ayorinde (Rachel Ross), and Henry Hunter Hall (Walter) Directed by Kasi Lemmons.

Review: 

"I don't wake up every day saying I'm a black woman because it's too given, but I wake up every day feeling like an artist and I feel I'm an artist."

Admittedly, maintaining a career as a director is no small feat for folks with talent, whether as a man or a woman. Kasi Lemmons was born in St. Louis, Missouri but raised in Massachusetts, complete with an early interest in movies. She attended New York University Tisch School of the Arts before doing study at UCLA. Lemmons first was an actress, starting in television in the late 1980s along with making her film debut in School Daze (1988). She made a handful of appearances in film and television over the next few years, most notably with Candyman (1992). Lemmons directed her first film with Eve's Bayou (1997), a Southern Gothic drama that was a general success on the independent level. Lemmons has directed five further films in the 25 year-span since that film, such as Talk to Me (2007) and Black Nativity (2013). One is never sure how a movie can lend a portrait to a famous name in history, especially with Harriet Tubman (born Araminta Ross), who did indeed make an escape from Maryland to Philadelphia that covered roughly 100 miles (although she actually tried to bring along two of her brothers on the trip as opposed to it being a solo trip - they quit not long into the trip). She rescued roughly seventy people that were born into slavery in her native land of Maryland, whether that meant secret travel by night to the North or in later times, British North America (and yes, she did carry a gun). The Civil War led to her serving as a cook, a nurse, and later a scout for the Union Army (her service did not merit a pension for decades, and when it did come, it did not mention her work as a spy). She lived long enough to also take part in the fight for the right for women to vote, living into her nineties before passing away in 1913. The most mainstream depiction of Tubman before this film was a television miniseries in A Woman Called Moses that was shown in 1978 with Cicely Tyson as Tubman. Not that the film is to be judged entirely on the merits of 100% historical consistency, but one can judge for themselves how to interpret a film that features Alwyn, Monae, and Dorsey each playing characters not based in fact. The screenplay was done by Gregory Allen Howard, who is listed as co-writer of the story with Lemmons. 

Honestly, the movie is just fine. It is comprised of a handful of tropes you would probably see coming from a biopic of 125 minutes. But what exactly does one expect? Well, with the litany of biopics involving men or talking more about the time of 19th century America, I suppose another biopic about someone as remarkable as Harriet Tubman will be fine enough to please those interested in cut-and-dry American stories. It is sincere enough in its direction while having a solid lead performance to make it one of those quality movies that you might rent for a time. Erivo soars fairly well when it comes to handling the lofty expectations laid out in playing a historical character, which basically means she blends into the role without distraction. Tenacity and devout faith (the real Tubman was quite religious and also prone to experiencing visions, as depicted in the film) are key to understanding Tubman in the eyes of Erivo that emanate the power of deliverance. The rest of the cast proves fine, although the dialogue occasionally puts them at risk for wooden traps. Odom makes a fine headliner among the historical character support (the real Still was indeed an abolitionist that was once called "The Father of the Underground Railroad", and his 1872 publishing of records of the people who went through the Railroad is key to understanding the process). Peters pops in to provide warmth against Erivo. Alwyn is at the very least a semi-compelling adversary composite. Others like Monae and Dorsey don't fare as well, but again, there isn't a weak factor in the film, which generally moves on a set pace that makes the Underground Railroad (a series of routes and safe houses) seem quite interesting. As a whole, the movie is generally diligent about keeping focus on its subject without turning mundane or spinning itself away from historical basis too much. It is a fairly entertaining movie that honors its subject with fitting reverence that does exactly what it hopes to do, albeit one that operates within a certain boundary of range. If its gloss of history is that important to keep in our memories for important women in history, it will likely work out just right for a watch.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: Lady Bird.