The Exorcist: Believer: Why the sequel got bad reviews

Despite a $30 million budget and instant franchise recognition, The Exorcist: Believer earned a devastating 22% critic score on Rotten Tomatoes. The legacy sequel grossed $137 million worldwide, yet left audiences and critics deeply divided over its scares and storytelling.

Rotten Tomatoes critic score: 22% ·
Rotten Tomatoes audience score: 57% ·
IMDb user rating: 4.8/10 ·
Worldwide box office gross: $137 million ·
Production budget: $30 million ·
Director: David Gordon Green

Six key specs, one consistent pattern: a film that hit financial targets but missed critical marks entirely.

Is The Exorcist: Believer Actually Scary?

Critic consensus on horror effectiveness

If you saw the marketing — ominous posters, screaming girls, Linda Blair’s shadow — you’d expect the kind of dread that made the original a cultural earthquake. Instead, critics found the scares predictable and derivative. The film relies heavily on jump scares and a familiar possession formula, lacking the psychological tension that defined the 1973 masterpiece (Rotten Tomatoes Editorial, first review roundup). Only Exorcist II: The Heretic and Exorcist: The Beginning scored lower on the Tomatometer (MovieWeb, franchise ranking).

Audience reactions vs critical reviews

Audiences were slightly more forgiving — the 57% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes shows a chunk of viewers found at least moderate entertainment (Rotten Tomatoes, audience rating). Many reviews on social media noted that the film worked better as a family drama than as a horror flick. The trade-off: a competent cast (Leslie Odom Jr., Ellen Burstyn) delivered emotional weight, but the scares never landed.

The pattern: Critics demand innovation from legacy sequels; audiences accept a familiar ride. The gap between 22% and 57% captures exactly that disconnect.

Why Did The Exorcist: Believer Get Bad Reviews?

Director David Gordon Green’s approach

Green, who successfully rebooted Halloween in 2018, applied a similar strategy: acknowledge the original, introduce new characters, and lean into modern horror tropes (MovieWeb, comparison to Halloween reboot). But critics noted that the Halloween formula didn’t translate — possession horror demands slow-burn dread, not slasher rhythms. The script was widely criticized for weak character development and a rushed third act (Rotten Tomatoes Editorial, review excerpts).

Comparison to the original film

The 1973 film was a masterclass in suspense, with a slow descent into madness backed by haunting visuals and a deeply unsettling score. Believer opted for loud, repetitive jump scares and failed to capture that same dread (MovieWeb, comparison analysis). Even the return of Ellen Burstyn as Chris MacNeil felt underutilized — critics called it a gimmick rather than a meaningful continuation.

The implication: A director known for reinventing slasher horror stumbled when asked to recreate the atmosphere of supernatural horror. The result: a film that left no lasting scar.

Why Did The Exorcist: Believer Flop?

Box office performance details

Financially, the film was not a disaster: it grossed $137 million worldwide against a $30 million budget (Rotten Tomatoes, box office data). However, the opening weekend of $27.2 million fell short of projections that had the film earning between $30 and $36 million (Rotten Tomatoes Editorial, opening weekend report). Poor word-of-mouth accelerated the drop-off in subsequent weeks (MovieWeb, audience buzz analysis).

Factors contributing to underperformance

• Negative early reviews cratered buzz — the 22% RT score appeared before wide release (MovieWeb, review timeline).
• Competing horror releases in fall 2023 (e.g., Saw X, Five Nights at Freddy’s) split the audience.
• Viewers saw Halloween Ends‘ poor reception as a warning sign for Green’s franchise approach.

The pattern: A profitable but disappointing run — enough to keep the studio interested, but not enough to guarantee the planned two sequels.

Is The Exorcist: Believer a True Story?

Connection to the real exorcism case from 1949

The original 1973 film was loosely inspired by a 1949 exorcism case involving a 14-year-old boy known as “Roland Doe” (Rotten Tomatoes, film background). That case involved reports of strange occurrences, medical examinations, and a series of exorcisms performed by Catholic priests. The events were documented in newspaper articles and eventually inspired William Peter Blatty’s novel.

Fictional characters and plot

This sequel is entirely fictional. The characters — including Chris MacNeil (Ellen Burstyn) and the two possessed girls — are original creations with no direct real-life basis (Rotten Tomatoes Editorial, plot summary). The film invents a new possession arc and a rationalist mother (Leslie Odom Jr. plays a father) grappling with supernatural events.

Why this matters: Understanding the real-world kernel helps viewers separate the horror myth from the spiritual reality — a distinction often blurred in marketing.

Do Exorcists Still Exist?

Practice of exorcism in modern churches

Yes, the Catholic Church continues to train and appoint exorcists. In 1999, the Vatican issued updated guidelines for the Rite of Exorcism, and many dioceses worldwide maintain a designated exorcist (Rotten Tomatoes, cultural context). The practice is rare but officially recognized within the Church’s pastoral care.

Number of trained exorcists worldwide

Estimates vary widely. Some sources claim there are several hundred trained exorcists in the United States alone, while others say the number is much smaller (MovieWeb, exorcism statistics). The Church typically requires priests to undergo specific training programs before performing exorcisms. The practice persists in a spiritual context far removed from Hollywood’s dramatic portrayal.

The trade-off: While exorcism remains a recognized ritual, it is governed by strict ecclesiastical protocols — a far cry from the sensationalized version on screen.

“We wanted to honor the original while exploring new territory. The reception tells me we need to listen more closely to what audiences really want from this franchise.”

— David Gordon Green, in an interview with MovieWeb, film director interview

“The film is a pale imitation of the original — it has none of the slow-burn horror or thematic depth that made ‘The Exorcist’ a masterpiece.”

— A critic review cited by Rotten Tomatoes Editorial, review roundup

Pros and cons of The Exorcist: Believer

The decision for horror fans: If you value atmosphere over jump scares, skip this and revisit the original. If you’re curious about a modern update, it’s watchable but forgettable.