The Believer (II) (2021) User Reviews

I'm kinda torn about this

[IMDbKeepsDeletingMyReviews · 5/10 · 2 April 2021]

Have you ever been to the movie theater and liked the film, but some idiots in the audience kinda spoiled everything? Because THE BELIEVER is a bit like that.

In general, I'd say that the premise and the twist aren't bad at all, the execution is solid and the pacing is good - not bad for a low-budget flick like this. But there are aspects that do their best to spoil the whole thing.

First, there is Sophie Kargman. While she does an alright job at being annoying and creepy, her mumbling delivery constantly drags you out of the movie, trying to understand what she's actually saying. It doesn't help that they apparently had no sound engineer on set, since almost all the dialogue sounds like a camera mic through too much denoiser. Honestly, the denoising is so bad that it swallows whole syllables at times. The dialogue editors even made a very audible mistake in the online video of Billy Zane giving a talk. Pretty amateurish, to be honest.

Then, there are incredibly stupid lines like "Logic is the guardian of faith" and similar pseudo-philosophical deepities. Actually, the first ten minutes were full of irrational babbling like that, making me think about aborting prematurely. Yes, pun intended.

But no, I pulled through, and once the film picks up some speed, it fares pretty well. And even if the jump scares fell flat for the most part, I still thought that at least the third act was quite compelling.

All in all, THE BELIEVER is a bit of a slow burner with a lot of a lot of pointless and stupid gum flapping in the beginning. The distracting dialogue issues are hurting the film a lot, but if you are a patient and yearning lover of the supernatural, you might find some enjoyment here.

Plot improves exponentially with subtitles...

[divadoodledoo · 4/10 · 9 August 2021]

Key elements of the plot are lost in the mumbling, unintelligible dialogue by "Sophie".

All over the place.

[thegravitroneffect · 5/10 · 19 April 2021]

It was a good movie but very confusing at times.

Definitely watchable and not bad.

Disjointed at BEST.

[markneil-35448 · 2/10 · 5 August 2021]

Just another in a series of horror movies made by directors that think it's ingenious to leave so many plot holes that we end up with a swiss cheese of a movie.

Is the couple really married? Were they ever?

How is the adult given "birth"?

Are the parents good/evil?

Is this some kind of Hell? Purgatory? Coming of the antiChrist?

Is the leading man Rosemary's baby born directly into adulthood?

And finally, after so many other questions, the last one is, by the end...who cares?

What the heck did I watch?

[robertjandrew · 1/10 · 29 August 2021]

Well. There goes 90 minutes of my life, that I will never get back. Bad acting, horrible pacing and a virtually unfollowable plot. Do not waste your time. I would have rather watched 90 minutes of the purple dinosaur Barney than this movie. Ugh.

What I Refuse To See Is.....

[wandernn1-81-683274 · 4/10 · 30 August 2021]

Billy Zane, about 30 years now from being 'The purtiest man I ever saw' guest appears in this...thriller or whatever it is. He's a psychologist to a 'scientist' who is having some serious relationship problems.

Well the wife is obviously a nut job, at least from the perspective she is shown. But it seems the Billy Zane character is probably not real. It seems like much of which the husband sees is not real, perhaps even his wife is not real.

So you spend the whole movie wondering who is the nut job? Is it the wife? Is it the husband?

LOL...the Lucas kills Violet's parents at dinner. That's just great. This is like the most crazy movie I've seen. It tries so hard to be crazy and confuse that it passes the point of being ridiculous.

Yes, crazy. Where is your phone?? Okay well anyways, I can't say this one is good. It kept me guessing up until the fairly disappointing finish. And I'm writing a review so I can make sure I don't watch it ever ever again.

And a waste of Billy Zane. 4/10.

pretentious aesthetic and heavy makeup

[baka_land · 3/10 · 1 July 2021]

Violet looks like mormon robot with heavy makeup, this film tries too hard to be something when there isn't something solid to grasp your attention.

so what shall you say...

[ops-52535 · 5/10 · 5 April 2021]

To a drunken sailor, early in the morning??? If you say im a believer youll get a stare of a goat flung in your face, and thats what i feel after struggling in the dark velvet of dark cinematography.

Imagine this happens today, its a couples relationship right on the edge of infinitum due to coronaisolation, the female part wont let the malepart leave the marriage because she thinks that loving you is a dirty job but somebodys got to do it, because love is in vain, and she declaims like robert palmer that shes addicted to love whatever and whenever. So to keep him under control the female drugs her very best friend to keep him at bait, at bait yes, convincing him that she has unbelievable strong evil forces under her wings, that will crush him every time he tries to break out to reach the realms of the male crisis center nearby...and so goes the riddle of this story.

Its really a psychopathetic cat and mouse doing the uncarted race through the roller coaster called love and empathy in a marriage thats become a frenzy of uneven domination, where the trix does the trick, and the doomed does the dirty work, because if the male doesnt do like his dominatrix says , she would awake his fear that she would die in his arms that night, with the message written all over the wall that if you cant hurt me i can hurt myself for you.

This was written by a delirious grumpy old man, demented by the films message, and doesnt know where to go or what to believe after watching. It has though a bloody end you may squirm yourself through insanitys 7 steps to reach.it is a psychedellicquasihorror on the bait, you will love it or just turn it of.

Productionwise its a well made film, the smallcast acts well, but its very crosslegged plotted till you feel the numbness of fatigue, and the story is like some of the most offbeat lyrics by bob dylan or the reality of a khardashian, so will i recommend a view???????????????

6/10

[shannon-bill · 6/10 · 14 April 2021]

Nowhere near as bad as the current rating of 3.6.

It's weird enough and creepy enough to pull it into the 6 range. The acting was acceptable and the direction was reasonably taut. While it wasn't the second coming of Rosemary's Baby it was better than Exorcist II - The Heretic!

I watched it based on a bad review

[iounu2 · 9/10 · 8 September 2021]

I read this review that pointed out so many bad things I needed to see for myself. So I purposely started a movie I knew wasn't supposed to be good and I'm writing this review like 6 minutes into the movie because in the opening scene I just LOVED the force a woman side flings a plate directly behind herself at like 200 mph. It was awesome. I've watched that plate throw 4 times. I may never actually make it to the end of this movie.

More like an off beat thriller.

[bladeofzorro · 6/10 · 6 April 2021]

To say its a horror film is excessive as there is more tension and mystery than horror. Having said that Sophie Kargman does a really good job of being on the edge of deranged, although you're not quite sure.

I would say its more of a thriller with overtones. I think that we have become slightly insular to "horror" in films, so it needs to be really scary to be classed as a horror film.

I am not saying that some might find it horrific in places but I am sure that most won't. This doesn't detract from the off beat strangeness of the film as you are dragged along by the storyline.

Aiden Bristow works well as a believable character and you do feel for him and yet there is that nagging feeling in the back of your mind about him.

This is one of those films that if you don't watch it all you won't get it.

I found it very watchable and wasn't disappointed but I would have liked a little more depth to the plot.

Not Great

[saligia-54947 · 1/10 · 12 October 2021]

I had to put on the subtitles because I couldn't understand what they were saying. Also, the dialog was off-putting.. who talks like that? There is a lot of added words to their lines that shouldn't be there. Overall the movie was awkward and almost mediocre.

Don't even waste your time

[koxjust · 1/10 · 18 October 2021]

Most confusing movie ever, the writer need to explain it or rather tell us what they had in mind to produce it. I got thrown off many times doesn't even know when or how the guy hallucinate every seconds.

I couldn't believe

[rohnee-71569 · 3/10 · 19 August 2021]

Too damn long and drawn out for me, my lord just walk out!!! Dialogue was so unnecessary....

Bad

[gab-67599 · 3/10 · 5 June 2021]

I enjoyed the actors but they story was stupid and did not make sense. Would have been better if the child was some how evil. But he made a child and it was him in his own image. Lame! Hard pass for me, but you be your own judge.

yuck

[curse-of-egypt · 1/10 · 6 September 2021]

Man this movie sucked. Reminds me too much of Stephen King's Misery. With the way she threatens him, threatens to kill him or use a drill on him? Give me a break. Been there, Done that.

Decent, but slow

[Horror_Flick_Fanatic · 7/10 · 15 October 2021]

Suspenseful religious horror that borrows plot points from Rosemary's Baby (1968) and the Omen (1976) anti-christ. The pacing is very slow even for those of us used to slow paced film. But it's not bad. Definitely a watch alone type film.

The Believer

[turtleloverules · 5/10 · 7 September 2021]

This movie was barely watchable, due to extremely slow pace and a wimpy leading man. I kept watching and the movie ended with a flourish to my amazement.

What is just the acid or is there something to this weird ass film?

[davidgodbout611 · 8/10 · 4 October 2021]

You won't know quite what's going on or if you've lived this moment a thousand times.

What I refuse to see

[nogodnomasters · 6/10 · 13 April 2021]

Lucas (Aidan Bristow ) is an out of work nuclear engineer. He has issue with bone health and has trouble with reality, not knowing what is real and what he imagines. His psychologist is Billy Zane who may also be real or not. His wife Violet (Sophie Kargman ) is odd acting and believes Lucas has a demon. Lucas is upset because Violet had an abortion (apparently done by her own hand) without his knowledge or consent.

This is a film that would have made a good book. It moves slow at a snail's pace losing its audience. The audience doesn't know what is real or imagined, just that Violet is creepy. Not for everyone.

Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity.

How Dare you!!!?!

[candacewilliams-95314 · 1/10 · 5 September 2021]

A COMPLETE waste of time. I literally want to fight. Ugh don't bother.

Robotic, toxic relationship between two people who shouldn't so much as have a conversation.

[TokyoGyaru · 2/10 · 21 November 2021]

Let alone marry. The only reason it gets two stars is that it doesn't look like it's filmed on someone's several-generations-old phone like a lot of movies on Tubi look, it has some competent shots, and it has a legitimate actor in Billy Zane, though he likely filmed his part in half a day at most.

Otherwise, it's watching two lame people with the personalities of ocean sponges stiffly talk nonsense as they stand or sit rigidly like strangers. These are people who shouldn't be together, and whatever the outcome of the movie (is he hallucinating, in limbo, etc.?), the road to get there is rough. I hate toxic people. I don't like spending time with them even in fiction no matter the context, so this is a slog to get through.

S/N: The main guy seems like a James Nguyen character who finally snapped.

Not horror-horrible!

[rouxsgirl · 1/10 · 20 September 2021]

This has to be one of the worst movies ever!! I've seen better acting in third grade plays. I seriously could not find one redeeming quality in the entire film. Don't waste your time!

almost got it, but then it flopped

[phenomynouss · 5/10 · 20 March 2022]

Going into this movie I expected something conventional. Nothing in the description or the opening scene made it seem like it wouldn't be conventional. But after a very short time, it becomes clear this is a weird movie going out of its way to be dense and unclear, in a good way, playing up heavily the classic "is it something paranormal or is it mental illness?" trope, while also not making it clear who is the one suffering from this.

Lucas, the main character, is kind of an obnoxious, grating type of person who is constantly picking passive-aggressive fights with his wife Violet, who very clearly needs some special help or gentler handling, of which Lucas is absolutely not fit to provide. As such, this woman who is clearly constantly on edge and suppressing it with a cheery housewife facade, ends up having constant violent breakdowns in which she self-harms and Lucas seems incapable of not being the trigger in these instances.

But that doesn't end up being the real main focus of the film, as instead Lucas seems to be the one dealing with something unknown and mysterious, with Violet seeking out answers in the form of some barely coherent religiosity that isn't specific or concise enough to actually be religious.

The movie treads carefully along with regards to this conflict, and is almost fun as a result, especially when it comes to the suspicious interactions with Violet's parents and Lucas's psychologist.

But at the end, after having gone so delicately along the path of "is it real or is it imaginary?" and made it a point to not clearly explain anything, they spring some completely incoherent twist that gets thrown in our faces abruptly and which does not make any sense at all within the confines of the movie alone. As in, the ending only makes sense if you apply a certain religious belief to the film. If you were not a religious person or otherwise knowledgeable about certain religions, it would make absolutely no sense.

Delicious ideas and potential constrained by astounding, heavy-handed ego fluffing

[I_Ailurophile · 5/10 · 14 September 2023]

Protagonist Lucas immediately comes off as an arrogant, possessive, jealous, demanding pompous, reactionary, sexist, know-it-all jerk who isn't remotely likable. It's not a good start. Nor is the fact that Shan Serafin's script immediately overflows with such overbearing, self-important, pretentious, verbose dialogue and scene writing that, admittedly not knowing anything about him, the filmmaker himself comes off as arrogant and pompous just by virtue of what he's subjecting us to, as if he's saying "I'm smarter than you and this script is proof." Meanwhile, even Violet is written as tiresomely conceited, and Sophie Kargman is transparently being directed to play her in a manner as mechanical and inhuman as possible, so while the character is more likable than Lucas, it's not by much. It would be one thing if we as viewers were made to feel uncomfortable by the nature of Lucas and Violet's relationship, and the harsh energy of those dynamics astounded us, and drew us in; Richard Bates Jr did exactly this with his 2016 picture 'Trash fire,' and it was fantastic.

Yet Serafin's approach here isn't wry, only dead serious and rather egotistically forthright. Moreover, it's readily evident that Serafin is intending to tell a story of the mind, of two people who in their own ways are struggling with distorted conceptions of reality and subsequently come into conflict. Psychological horror or drama requires a delicate, nuanced touch, however - and as if the instruction Serafin imparted to Kargman isn't indication enough, it becomes very clear very quickly that 'The believer' is characterized by cold, precise, emphatic direction. There's barely a single moment that doesn't come across as the cinematic equivalent of the cliche in public speaking of a person slamming their hand into their fist to accentuate a line, and here it feels like Serafin is telling us over and over, "I am doing horror. This is smart. This is good. I am smart. You find this impactful." With all that firmly in mind, this as an instance in which crystal clear sound design, and crisp and vivid cinematography, don't do the movie any favors and only add to the heavy-handedness.

I've seen Kargman elsewhere and I know she's a good actor, and I see that skill buried beneath the writing and direction, aching to burst through; she was the reason I chose to watch this in the first place. We all know that Billy Zane is a good actor. I'm not familiar with the other folks involved but I trust that they, too, would illustrate their skills if given the opportunity. I think there are terrific ideas here in the scene writing, and in the plot, including those kernels of plot that are suggested through dialogue. I believe there does come a point, within about the last third of the length, that Serafin allows his ego to take a back seat in at least some measure to overall genre vibes, closing in instead on the sinister horror fun locked within of unreliable perception and the suggestions of something wonderfully wicked on the edges. As he does, there's no doubt in my mind that the heavy-handedness subsides, and in every capacity - the storytelling, the acting, even the original score - we see and feel the nuance, the possibilities, and the dread atmosphere that we should have been getting all along, and would have were it not for Serfin's spotlight on his own brain.

That last stretch is so strong, in fact, that my opinion of 'The believer' is elevated to some degree. The underhanded power and delight in Kargman's performance, the fear in Aidan Bristow's, the deviousness of the goings-on and of the broader implications, and the commensurate ambience that envelopes all this: these are what make this feature enjoyable. It's a shame that they're restricted to the last stretch, and that the single most dominant factor for almost the entire first hour is the severe and gawky enunciation of just how smart the script is, just look at all these words and phrases on these pages, look at the big brain on Serafin. Am I being facetious? A little bit. But only a little. Maybe I'll watch something else the man has made and I'll be impressed, and I'll see what he is capable of. As it is, I think what this title needed was for a second person to revise the screenplay, and to co-direct with Serafin, to limit his self-aggrandizing. And hey, maybe I'm wrong! Maybe I'm misreading everything, and I'm genuinely being unfair to the filmmaker. I'll admit it's possible. As I write this I know nothing of him beyond this film, so maybe I need a larger sample size. Then again, that allows me to assess this more objectively, even though I'm already a fan of Kargman - and, well...

I'm glad for those who get more out of 'The believer' than I do. I see what this could have been. The fact remains that in my opinion the value that peeks through in the last third or so, the value that helps upraise the whole, does so only because that's where Serafin deprioritizes himself. And maybe I'm being too kind as it is.