User reviews

I've been reading the reviews and felt the need to clarify a few things in case you're reading these reviews, debating whether or not to see this film.

1. It is not the worst horror film ever. People who say something like that obviously have not seen enough horror films to know the worst ones. By no means is this movie a revolutionary breakthrough that will reinvigorate the horror genre, but the film does a good job at making a decent exorcism movie documentary-style.

2. The video camera shaking is not that bad. Yes, it shakes, but that's the style of the movie. Get over it. If you don't like that style at all and are always made sick by it, don't see it.

3. To say the ending was ambiguous and left people missing the themes of the movie and therefore a bad choice is also a bit ridiculous. If you saw the movie Inception and still loved it despite the "ambiguous" feeling the film left you with and the obsessive pondering over what actually happened in the last dreams sequence then you can't complain at this ending which was NO WHERE near as complex. If you take a few minutes to work it out (talk amongst your friends if need be), the ending is not ambiguous at all.

4. The filmmakers themselves never claim that this is actual footage. So stop worrying about "how they found the camera footage" in the first place. The filmmakers made a work of fiction, and I'm sure they hope their audience understands this.

I can't deal with all the critiques, but to comment on the films good qualities:

It does add a few different takes on the "classic" form of an exorcism film such as the documentary-style, the characters, and particularly the ending.

As far as scariness, you have to understand the nature of what makes a good exorcism horror and good documentary horror: the "sluggish build up" (as many juvenile critics have termed it) is everything. What makes these movies great is that you, for a while, forget you're in a horror movie and start to believe you're watching real events unfold. You can split hairs over how long the film needs to convince you that these people and situations are real but without it you have no movie, or no good exorcism/documentary horror film. With it's slower (I wouldn't use sluggish) beginning the film hopes to sincerely connect you with the characters and believable setups so that when bizarre events do occur you are more likely to (sincerely) accept them and be frightened by them. No, the movie was not overwhelming scary. It doesn't go for cheap jump out moments (maybe once or twice) or CGI animations of demons popping out everywhere. But it does deliver a more realistic approach to child possession than most of its predecessors, which is pretty scary.

The ending is definitely a big moment for people's final judgment of the film, because it goes in such a different direction from what the rest of the film points too. But as stated before it is not ambiguous. All I will say is keep an open mind, and realize that this film though documentary-styled is still a work of fiction (again, as stated before). It took me a few moments to adjust once the ending was over, but after some thought I didn't mind the twist. Could it have been better? Definitely. Am I outraged? No. The film makers just wanted to produce something a little different than the expected exorcism ending. Perhaps the biggest upset of the ending is that it detracts from majority of the film's atmosphere of realism.

If you ARE a fan of exorcism movies and movies like the Blair Witch Project or even horror movies in general, The Last Exorcism is a good watch to satisfy your boredom and keep you entertained for an hour and a half, especially if you understand and like the construct of "sluggish build up" and if you have a few extra bucks that you're looking to spend.If your looking for a horror movie that will revive the horror genre for our time, this isn't it. But the film isn't trying to be the next big name in horror, so my rating is based off of the intentions of the film itself. Overall, the movie did it's job in being mildly original, having great acting (considering that this is in fact a lower-budget horror movie), in staying true to the genre, and in delivering an engaging story.

In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, the evangelical Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) was raised by his father to be a preacher. He agrees that the filmmaker Iris Reisen (Iris Bahr) and the cameraman Daniel Moskowitz (Adam Grimes) make a documentary about his life. Cotton tells that when her wife Shanna Marcus (Shanna Forrestall) had troubles in the delivery of their son Justin (Justin Shafer), he prioritized the doctor help to God and since then he questions his faith. Further, he tells that exorcisms are frauds but the results are good for the believers because they believe it is true. When Cotton is summoned by the farmer Louis Sweetzer (Louis Herthum) to perform an exorcism in his daughter Nell (Ashley Bell), Cotton sees the chance to prove to the documentary crew what he has just told. They head to Ivanwood and they have a hostile reception from Louis's son Caleb (Caleb Landry Jones). Cotton performs the exorcism in Nell, exposing his tricks to the camera, but sooner they learn that the dysfunctional Sweetzer family has serious problems.

"The Last Exorcism" is a good movie that follows the same style of "The Blair Witch Project", "Cloverfield", "(Rec)", "(Rec2)" and "Paranormal Activity"), with a hand-held camera simulating a documentary. The acting is very realistic but unfortunately the poor conclusion ruins the ambiguity of the good story. Anyway I liked this film, specially the great performances of Ashley Bell, Patrick Fabian and Louis Herthum. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Último Exorcismo" ("The Last Exorcism")

Taking the pulse of a horror-loving film community in 2010, "The Last Exorcism" is like a document of pop culture history in its mix of marketing and aesthetics. Trying to out-Paranormal-Activity "Paranormal Activity 2" this Halloween will be a genuine challenge for the Eli Roth produced film, but the fauxumentary's premise does have a few genuine thrills and chills going for it, making it a decent double-bill screening for game fans of the genre. Appropriating the best narrative and visual tropes from its direct influences, namely "Marjoe", "The Exorcist" and even the recent "The Exorcism of Emily Rose" in how it wrenches out a mystery element, director Daniel Stamm uses the newly fresh-again format of documented horror to elevate the drama inherent in an exorcism's taut chamber piece setting. There is a good chance here of being firmly disturbed, if you let the film take you where it wants to take you.

Armed with a genial personality and powerful charisma, Louisiana's Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) goes around the country performing fake exorcisms on the believing. Tired of his lifestyle, he enlists a filmmaker, Iris Reisen (Iris Bahr) and her unseen cameraman (Adam Grimes) to document his final foray into the fraud as he prepares a venture into real estate after a personal tragedy. Following the reverend's exposé on the sham rituals of exorcisms, the film crew finds the beginnings of a real case of demonic possession in Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell), a shy and gentle girl with a shotgun-toting, fundamentalist father (Louis Herthum) worried about the dark and heinous things occurring on the farmhouse.

Fabian's depiction of the Reverend is terrific fun. He brings out so much of the character that it only enlivens the film and makes it feel all too real while newcomer Bell also shows some strong chops (and flexible limps) for this genre. The film takes its settings seriously and Stamm builds the foundation cleverly and patiently for powerfully unsettling moments. There's a good sense about the screenplay -- not exceedingly smart for its good but not too detached from its conceit that the illusion is never broken. The single perspective thorough the documentarian's lenses helps focus the story into the visceral and direct scenes of terror, almost taking on a life of its own. While the story does tend to falter till the end, the strength of its conviction to juggle the various layers apparent makes its intrigue palpable.

While never being a thrill-a-minute fright-fest on the level of "Rec 2", "The Last Exorcism" is a sophisticated and confident manipulation of the format is a treat. Its mockumentary aesthetics are refined and brought into fruition well enough to tell a tale of faith and disbelief, the unknown and unknowable darkness that exists beyond our rationalities.

If you've seen this film, you have an opinion on it. And this is natural given the open ended finale of the movie. For those who haven't seen the movie--don't worry--I don't plan on ruining it by saying anything in this review that you wouldn't know by seeing the preview or anything that would detract from your viewing experience? at least I'll try not to.

The highlight of the movie for me was Pastor Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian). He succeeded in weaving together a layered, complex character which is rare for the horror genre. He plays a southern Baptist minister who grew up in the church. As a PK, he was bred to be on the pulpit. One would think that with a lifetime spent in the church, his faith would be devout--quite the opposite. As years have passed, his faith has weakened to a point where now even he doubts.

Another huge plus for me in this film are the ups and downs--one minute your knees are at your chest and you're on the verge of covering your eyes, and the next you're lost in the development of the plot.

No matter what your thoughts on the end of the movie, I challenge someone to dispute the merits of a scary movie to put more emphasis on character development to further the suspense than the typically cheap thrills.

This is Hollywood storytelling at its frustratingly safest; an attempt to appease everyone and but in the end not pleasing anybody. It will not please horror fans because of the lack of scares and gore; it will not please the general audiences looking for a thriller because of its logic defying supernatural events that muddles up the storytelling and I suspect it will not appease the religious audiences since it takes a bit of negative view of exorcism and preaching. I think part of this is the reason that the pacing of the story is completely off; it builds up slowly and then bam, it's completely over the top.

The movie starts off rather well with the pastor looking to expose exorcism as a hoax with a documentary team that lands them in a perfect breeding ground for the possessed. It is at its best when it slowly builds up the situation careening out of control, not by supernatural forces but by the characters themselves. However, at this point the movie itself gets too scared to make its way to a conclusion and takes the way out via ambiguity trying to appease as broad an audience as possible. The end is so rushed and muddled that it just ends up as confusing and unfinished; someone in the audience actually said that a sequel better be made, mistaking the ending for a cliffhanger.

Ambiguity is a powerful tool for a writer, filmmaker, or any creative person. But there's a fine line between ambiguity and lazy storytelling. The Last Exorcism, unfortunately, makes use of the latter. The film poses many questions but doesn't feel the need to answer most of them, meaning at the end of the film, the audience isn't so much pondering the themes of religious doubt and the adverse effects of shame so much as wondering what the hell just happened.

The lack of clarity is only made more frustrating by the overly shaky handy-cam cinematography. I normally enjoy this mode of filmmaking, and it was proved to be effective for horror films in last year's phenomenal breakout Paranormal Activity, but Daniel (the cameraman) has a bit too shaky of a hand for the style to work well here. I actually got a headache from some of the later, jumpier scenes.

It's a shame the film meanders to such a laughable conclusion, because it starts with such promise. The first half hour or so is surprisingly funny, effectively parodying the genre (specifically exorcism-based horror films) and presenting a religious slant to the proceedings that makes things interesting initially but ultimately seems cheap and even stupid. Two fine performances from Patrick Fabian and Ashley Bell are wasted as the material goes from subtly self-reflexive to blatantly generic. The horror that unfolds along the way rarely generates any real scares, settling instead for bursts of weirdness, cheap jumps, and ultimately, an unattractive mixture of stupidity and discomfort.

This horror film is surprisingly tame for something with Eli Roth's name attached to it (he produced it), but these days that's a compliment. Eschewing the grisly emphasis on bodily dismemberment that has pretty much come to define the new breed of creatively constipated horror directors, "The Last Exorcism" opts instead for some clever storytelling and a building sense of creepy dread. It mostly succeeds, except for a lame ending, and because of that I had almost the exact same experience watching this as I did "Paranormal Activity" last year.

All told, I think "The Last Exorcism" is the better movie. Full of actors I'd never seen before giving very good performances, it's a fake documentary about an evangelical minister who brings a camera crew with him to film an exorcism, in the hopes of exposing the business as one big fraud. What to do, then, when this man who rolls his eyes at the thought of demonic possession begins to suspect that he might be facing the real thing?

Much of the movie leaves the question as to the girl's actual possession ambiguous -- are her demons of the supernatural variety or are they the product of a severely dysfunctional home? Since I think problems of the mind are always scarier than the oogie boogies we can see and touch (after all, mental problems are much more real and much harder to deal with), the movie is most frightening in its middle sections, before secrets are revealed and plot points click into place. The ending, a mish-mash of "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Blair Witch Project," feels like what it is: a hard sell ending to a horror movie that would have been better to end with a shiver and a shudder rather than a shriek and a howl.

Grade: B

Saw this as a preview in London.

I do not blame any of my fellow reviewers here for slamming this down as the worst horror film. Indeed it is, if you watch this expecting to be scared out of your wits.

But this is not that film. The marketing for this movie, though brilliant, is criminally misleading.

This is a movie with a very clever spin on the normal exorcist fare. What this turns out be is a fascinating suspense drama using exorcism as a narrative tool.

I found the script to be very clever and entertaining. The main lead actor who plays the reverend is very charismatic and carries the whole movie. Admittedly, the movie would be half of what it is without his performance. The other actors, particularly the teenage victim who maybe possessed by a demon, are very good too.

What I didn't like most is the very end. It felt tacked on for the sake of living up to its misleading marketing. I can honestly say that if the film ended 10 minutes earlier, I would have been totally satisfied with a complete film and was ready for the credits.

However, there are attempts to make you jump out of your seat but unfortunately, these moments are too copy cat of the techniques used in Sixth Sense and similar. It may be effective to some but I feel it could have been done better and hence live up to the marketing hype after all! But those are small negatives. This is a movie very much worth watching, if you don't hate mockumentary style films. Lower your expectations, ignore the marketing and just enjoy a clever suspense drama. If you jump a few times, then think of it as a bonus.

The Last Exorcism is a mock documentary who is more concerned with psychological chills than flashy special effects, which is really appreciated (by me).

After the incredible success of The Blair Witch Project in 1999, this format has been overused by low-budget filmmakers, but it still works really well in The Last Exorcism, by showing the events through a single perspective, revealing or withholding information as they (filmmakers) please. And it's because of the withhold information that this movie divided opinions so much.

I believe that the last thing that this movie needed was a conclusion that tidied up the plot. The strength of this horror movie relies in his ambiguity, raising questions rather than explaining them.

The Last Exorcism takes its time to build up the tension, creating a great atmosphere and a growing sense of fear. It's also a film more interested in characters than gore.

But of course that ambiguity can lead to plot holes, and there are some minor details that are hard to explain, due to the number of questions that the movie raises.

As for the cast, they did a great job in looking real. They're not forwarding the plot or overacting. They are fully dimensional people who you relate to.

Pros: A mock documentary who is more concerned with psychological chills than flashy special effects. A fully dimensional cast, with people we can relate to. A great atmosphere and a growing sense of fear.

Cons: It relies on some horror movie clichés, which could be avoided. An ambiguous ending that will not please everyone (this con doesn't apply to me, but in a general way).

The whole setup here is that we have a professional actor - paid to put on shows about fire and brimstone - who will need to discern over the course of the film who is putting on the show he finds himself in. A film crew is turning this into a movie, presumed to reveal hidden mechanisms that move spectators. Turns out something else is controlling the thing and moving parts we thought we knew all about and possibly us. This will test his mettle as a showman himself, let's say his faith in the healing power of his act (art?). Is the girl acting out some repressed sexual trauma? Is the father, at the same time covering his tracks with Jesus babble? Or is the demon, the great trickster? (a mild problem here is that, the film being what it is, we never really wonder, do we?)

This is excellent stuff and could have worked as more than horror. Indeed, until the last part horror is intermittent here. Our focus is on juggling one show as part of another while getting to decide which one horrifies more. The choice for 'found footage' is one of the better applications I've seen in terms of structure; it means we have one more show running behind the other two, and one that we use to look for the real root of horror. There are many dramatic shots in the flow, but we can chalk these to the presence of a professional cameraman.

The ending has been reported as problematic. Oh, it is graphic but in ways that have become a staple in films dealing with some extraordinary demonic darkness; Polanski, Rosemary as well as Ninth Gate, the Hammer shocker The Devil Rides Out, Night of the Demon, recently Drag me to Hell. Many viewers bemoan the revelation and tend to prefer the whole thing coated in whispers and rumors. Fair point.

It works for me because it allows us to recast evil as another staged trick. Another group of people are brought in at the last moment to enact a show, the real deal this time. Real fire and brimstone. Death comes as storyboarded earlier.

If you're interested in the scam priest angle, it's only a light-hearted jab at faith here. Watch Marjoe for a more chilling portrait, the '72 documentary on the "World's Youngest Ordained Minister".

What's happened to horror movies these days?

"The Last Exorcism" should be exactly as the title predicts, the LAST of its kind.

The movie follows a preacher, Cotton, and his small film crew as they try to document him performing an exorcism on a young girl thought to be possessed by a demon. You learn quickly of Cotton's dying faith and that his performed "exorcisms" are no more than scams he puts on so that his family can pay the bills. However, Cotton may have taken on more than he bargained for as he reluctantly learns there may be more to this scenario than meets the eye...

So when I first sat down for this movie, I initially thought it was only me and my group of friends who had a hard time connecting with what was being displayed in front of us. Yes, there were a few moments of panic in the theater, a few quick jumps and screams made by all, but in the end the most common noise heard was laughter... well, laughter and outrage. EVERYONE seemed to be making jokes about this movie. The people behind us, in front of us, next to us... it seemed no one was able to really find any connection with any of the characters or what was going on in the film at all. It was for the most part predictable, to the point where half way through the movie they pretty much just tell you exactly how it will end.

And so with the end enters the outrage. Never before have I gone to a movie that ends with literally the entire theater crying out in anger at what they had just witnessed. It was almost as the people making the movie just gave up, giving the audience anything but a thought provoking ending and instead just giving everyone an abrupt smack in the face. They give you no time to let what you are seeing sink in, and you leave the theater so disappointed that you don't even care to fill in the holes. Even making the connections now, I find myself more disappointed than anything that I had to sit through such a film.

I give the movie 2/10. It would have gotten 1/10 except as I mentioned, it did deliver I guess what you could call a few minor scares. Overall it was pretty bad... if you have any plans of seeing this movie, you may want to reconsider you options.

I expected nothing from this movie going in and came away from it with my jaw on the floor. This is one that I can see myself watching again and again, much like Paranormal Activity or Ghost Watch. If your a fan of Blair Witch style mockumentaries like I am, you'll love this movie.

There were two things really worried me about this movie. The first, recently I've lost a lot of faith in Eli Roth. I haven't liked his mainstream work much and I certainly didn't like Inglourious Basterds (2009). I've felt Roth has gotten off track and almost betrayed his horror roots. The second thing I was worried about, was the PG rating this movie wound up with. I normally hate PG horror movies. I don't mind TV horror and there are a few movies out there that I like in the PG horror realm but for the most part, the rating scares the hell out of me. When I head this got a PG I rolled my eyes and though "well there goes another movie down the toilet". I was wrong. Not only has Roth redeemed himself in my eyes, but the PG rating didn't hurt this movie at all. I not only enjoyed it, I loved it and as I said I can see myself watching it over and over again. Overall the acting is good, the script is good, the story is good, it's got some scares and you'll easily wind up sinking into it believing that what your watching really happened. What more can you ask for in a movie of this style? Regardless of what I say, regardless of what anyone else says. When it comes out, rent it, watch it and judge for yourself. You won't be disappointed.

It's not a remake, thank god, it surprises me why this movie as a score of 5.9 ! This is one of the best movies of 2010 and one of the best mockumentaries ever made.

The concept is well executed and the story is interesting, there are plot twist, that i am not going to spoil it.

Is this better than "The Exorcist" ? don't know what to answer. Is this better than "Paranormal Activity" ? INDEED !!!!!. Is this boring like most of the PG-13 "Horror movies" ? No wait.....how the hell this movie was PG-13 ?!?!?!? the atmosphere is too "scary" and there are a few "shock" moments, even some thematic elements in the plot are too inappropriate for a "PG-13",

Ignore the all the negative comments here, watch it and be surprised ! Good work Daniel Stamm, 2 thumbs up on your work and thank you Eli Roth, for having supported a original horror movie !

If you can get over the fact, that this "Found footage" movie isn't exactly as found footage as you would imagine it to be (meaning that it defies the simplest rules and gives the whole thing a score and does edit it, without making it look like everything was shot as we see it). If you oversee the other flaw, that there actually has been a second camera, which means that even the found footage and edited thing doesn't entirely work, because it is obvious that it was filmed, then you can enjoy the movie. (not that you didn't know this was a movie anyway, just saying)

These could be seen as major flaws (and maybe you will feel like they are and will not forgive the movie), but even though I wouldn't normally consider a rating that high for a movie that has obvious flaws like these (by cheating and not caring about the viewers at all), I kinda enjoyed the movie. I enjoyed the ambiguity of the movie (don't let the movie poster fool you, the makers had nothing to do with that). The actors who are really great give their best. Even after the movie is over as seen at the Frightfest in London, where the main actor re-enacted a scene from the movie ... Nice!