The Exorcist is a film with obvious cultural relevance: I haven’t seen it (obviously), but I’m aware of the key points. The gods of cinema scheduling mean that I’ve now seen its recent sequel, The Exorcist: Believer.

I don’t think I’ve seen a horror film at the cinema before, and I’m tempted to say that I still haven’t. This was not a scary film: I did not hear a single scream, yelp, nor even a sharp intake of breath. It was really just a dull film: I did see quite a few people walk out.

In the film, two children become possessed by the devil, for reasons unclear, and become violent as a result. They require an absurd Catholic exorcism which serves as the penultimate act of the film. The script is clunky and predictable, with none of the actors really given much scope to make an impact.

The exception was Ann Dowd, playing a character called—I’m not kidding—Ann. Her character’s backstory was uniquely contrived, and it seemed to me that she had a twinkle in her eye which acknowledged the absurdity. There was even a knowing line in the script about how the coincidences were all part of god’s plan, or some similarly droll wording.

I also enjoyed Ellen Burstyn’s performance for the way she seemed to float above it all, mostly in scenes that were clearly filmed separately from the rest of the movie. The plot used the most absurd device to remove her from the main action that caused one person to loudly sigh ‘for fuck’s sake,’ and I enjoyed the ridiculousness of that.

There was a cameo at the end that was foreshadowed in a way that not only ruined any sense of surprise, but also made no sense in the context of the film. Part of the misbehaviour of the possessed children is to violently confront people with uncomfortable truths. In the case of the foreshadowing, they shout an obvious falsehood which is immediately credibly denied, undermining the power of that behaviour in the first place. It’s an astoundingly misconceived device.

Basically: this isn’t worth two hours of your time.