Exeter (2015) User Reviews

Not scary or dramatic enough to work as horror, not funny enough to work as a comedy

[moodymiles · 4/10 · 21 September 2015]

First, the good--I have to say, EXETER is a great-looking and well-made movie. The cinematography is top-notch, the directing is solid, and the acting is not great, but definitely passable. Unfortunately, the movie fails in something that is even more fundamental, which is finding and establishing a consistent tone/style/voice/vibe that works.

If this movie had had the balls to just be an outright comedy, I think it might have had a chance of really working. But by trying to cling to some kind of "real" horror story and attempting to mine real scares and genuinely disturbing moments from the material, it really loses its way.

By not firmly picking a lane between comedy and horror, the comedic moments in Exeter (which could have had promise) don't ever get a chance to really take off and the moments of dramatic life-and-death struggle just seem ridiculous. Rather than working together and potentially complimenting each other, the horror elements in EXETER only seem to undermine the comedy and the comedy makes the attempts at a serious horror story seem silly and ridiculous.

Some movies to a great job at balancing real laughs with real scares, but they seem to ultimately have a firm grasp on their tone and what kind of movie they're trying to be (a horror movie with comic relief vs. a comedy with some occasional horror and scares). Recent movies like HOUSEBOUND or BLOOD PUNCH are great examples of movies that pull off this tricky balancing act by establishing a tone and sticking to it, knowing exactly what kind of movies they are trying to be.

EXETER, unfortunately, never seems to quite find a tone that works for it. The result is a well- meaning but muddled movie that aspires to be both a horror and a comedy but ends up missing both targets completely.

The Horror

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 6 September 2015]

There are many rules teenagers do not follow in Horror movies, but can we blame them? Actually we can, but where would all (most) the horror movies go then? Exactly. But there are still differences even within crazy ideas. For me it's when there's decent effects, at least OK performances and a story that's not completely crazy (though sometimes that can be a good thing too).

This is quite normal, with lots of blood and gore effects and twists, which you may or may not see coming. The bottom line is, that it can be a fun watch, if you let it. I thought it was entertaining enough to pass the time, you should be able to tell after 10-20 minutes yourself. If it's not yours, stop watching then, rather than suffer through it

The meaning of "Rushed" , "Stereotypical" and "Annoying" does not cut it. Not even remotely

[angiris · 4/10 · 8 May 2015]

Another day, another horror. But is it another disappointment? Lets find out.

When I saw the cast and recognized the lead actor and especially Stephen Lang I reckoned that this was gonna be another casual horror, jump-scare kinda film but when it started the positive visuals and acting caused me to become more optimistic. Which was good. I was like; Hey, this is actually not so bad. Story is interesting, Stephen Lang is probably gonna be all Holy and stuff inside that house later.

Well... that all ended after right about 15-20 minutes. The teens are throwing a party, drunk, half naked and urinating everywhere inside the spooky horror house. Now I am gonna tell you exactly what you're gonna get from this so you can stay away.

A little kid gets possessed. How scary... They call a priest (Lang) Some dude appears with a gun and threatens to shoot the teens...because of reasons. Same dude dies when he goes to see the possessed kid. Teens see the dead shotgun-wielding dude. Freak out and run to their car. Stephen Lang gets hit by same car and dies... *sigh* Ohh...and did I mention that a small love story FIGURATIVELY manages to get shoe-horned into the mix in the middle of all this which unfolds in LESS THAN 20 minutes. And now... it just unfolds by having the teens walking around spooky house, performing an online handyman's version of an exorcism which fails. Then after a bit their friends begin to die off or get possessed even more.

Ohhh, and they take some of Lang's holy water too...spraying each other when suddenly practically everyone gets possessed randomly and freak out with creepy eyes. But when that doesn't work anymore the lead actor decides to grab a plastic fork and knife (from the looks of it) and force both into a possessed girls eyes. Even though she was his friend like...10 minutes ago. But yea... Then SUDDENLY! SLANG appears again. Wonderful! Stephen is back! Alright, guys. Even though he was hit by a car and flew in through the front windshield. But...whatever. SOme kid seas him, freaks, runs away, trips and falls and kills himself by falling on a pickaxe. *sigh*. By the way FORGET ALL about dramatic reactions to the many deaths through the film. These teens are hardcore. Death has no impact on these fellas. In the end it turns out Slang is this evil priest who tries to kill them all and only the lead Actor ( Blatz) survives. he then throws a lighter at Slang. He catches fire and the house catches fire too. Most incredible lighter ever.

But is that it? Hell no. The gal from love story part returns from the dead and turns out as the REAL bad guy here and she then gets brutally killed too.

The End.

I cannot elaborate on how MANY times Nispel decides to film random doors close whenever something ALLEGEDLY spooky happens. Man...the slamming door effect was scary the first time. But the 2nd-3rd-4th-5th- 100th freaking time !! has it lose its "scary" effect. Gets trivial really fast and ESPECIALLY considering how rushed your film is.

This film has teen lame horror written all over it that would only be able to frighten a 5 year old and the comedy factors that other reviewers claim it has would appeal to a 12 year old who laughs at the lamest of unfunny and paper thin joke material like having this stoner dude with long greasy hair walking around the ENTIRE film in his underwear with what looks like an orange donut attached to his right shoulder.

Ohh...and text drawn on his back which goes like: "I love ****." 4 letter word, guys. I'm pretty sure you can figure it out. Right... Funny... *slow claps for Marcus Nispel* I am very glad I watched your film online so I wouldn't regret paying for transport and entry to the cinema only to get...this.

So yea. That is Exeter or Backmask which it now calls itself. In my experience when a film suddenly changes its title after release that's already a red flag.

Stay away from Exeter/Backmask, my dear reader.

But if you so decide to experience its horrificness and partake in pure mindlessness (in a rather poorly done way) then I strongly advice you watch it online because paying for this would have you regret it. I can imagine there could be other things you could spend a total of 25-35 bucks on which should cover transport, cinema ticket and maybe popcorn and such.

Thats my take on this film. 4 out of 10. If it wasn't so SUPER rushed and annoyingly silly I would have rated it 5 for being an average horror flick like Texas Chainsaw Massacre and such. But that is simply NOT the case here. It actually reminds me a bit of scary movie 5 combined with some random exorcist flick. If that did not shock you then go watch scary movie 5. Do that so you can save yourself the time of watching this.

4 out of 10. A disappointing and annoying film that actually had potential. Zero replay value, fellas'. And I stress the word; Zero! Because if you like myself enjoy a serious horror flick, zero sums up the entertainment you'll get from this as well.

Exeter? More Like Excrement

[view_and_review · 3/10 · 1 January 2016]

I was confused. I wasn't confused about the plot, although there were plot holes, but I was confused about whether this was supposed to be a serious horror or a comedy horror. Midway through the movie I decided that it was supposed to be a comedy horror and that sorta helped me watch it all. But it even sucked at being a comedy horror.

Some spaz-tastic stoner teens have a drug fest at an abandoned ward for children with mental disabilities and psychological problems. Before the party ends one of the wasted teens gets possessed. Everything that happens after that was a rip from one movie or another with the largest sample bite being from "The Exorcist".

The way it started I thought it was going to be a hardcore grungy and gritty horror film. In the end the only thing grungy and gritty was the location. There's plenty of bloodshed and demon activity with some laughs in there just to make it look like, "Hey, we're not serious with this." But the sad thing is; I think they did want to be serious. It ended up being a ridiculous movie with a ridiculous plot.

What was that?

[iamtherobotman · 3/10 · 2 September 2015]

I'll keep this as short as need be. This is a truly awful attempt. When the young lad ( Rory ) is "possessed" they do all in their power to free him from the "demon", yet as soon as the girl ( who's name escapes me) gets possessed, they show her none of the same Mercy and can't wait to melt her head in with the first blunt and or heavy instrument which comes to hand. From there on, it's a free for all. Their compassion leaves them, their humanity, they just want to kill whoever this thing then possesses. the ending is equally as stupid. Yes, this is a lazy review of the movie but then, the makers were equally as lazy in making the movie. Don't bother with this.

God, give me strength

[begob · 3/10 · 30 May 2015]

An isolated, derelict loony bin, where partying teens spark off a serial demon possession.

Open on a topless drug addict: she sways in her gorgeous panty-clad ass and ... shoots her brains out. Wot? The director doesn't bother to take his time, and you're not given enough information to work this scene through the story - until the final plot ambush.

The next ten minutes is irritating teens doing what teens don't really do. Especially when they're played by mature, beautiful actors. Then totally unrhythmic horror clichés, with poor humour and feeble characterisation, and by 35 mins you want to give up. And die.

But it does settle into a rhythm, and I wonder if that's down to an experienced cinematographer getting to grips with the director (also the writer). But still lots of bad judgment in the storytelling - at 60-65 mins there are four - 4! - jump scares (one with a toilet-roll, followed by a low angle instead of a high angle). In all, maybe 30 jumps in the film (poor Rory plays the jump monkey), and none of them works - a world record. Again, bad timing by the director/writer.

Can't blame the actors. They all seem up for it, so whachagonnado? Many more weaknesses to tell, but I surrender. It does wrap up neatly, as we get back to the prologue. Plus the end credits repeat the song + there's sequel-bait. And now I goes to shleep.

Obviously money behind this production for cintematography and CGI, but I wish they'd spread it around for more talented story tellers. Copyright is 2012. Depressing conservative rubbish.

If you're looking for a good horror movie look elsewhere.

[an-obscure-movie-referen · 3/10 · 26 August 2015]

If you're in for a chuckle or two and you have a dark sense of humor this may be your speed. Think Army of the Dead but trying to be more serious and less cheesy. Honestly I've had this movie on my computer for the past two years listed as The Asylum and I spent a while looking for this. It's not a good horror/thriller but then again it's difficult to scare me.

-Possession, overused theme and it's been warn out. I get it catholic church, possession's a thing, I don't buy it but I believe that you believe it's real -Decent roster of actors with a very generic plot line, they managed to make it "work". -Music choice was decent

For the music I give it a 3, and because I kept watching it. I in all good conscience don't believe anything other than The last air bender, Dragonball Evolution, Avatar, and from what I've heard the fantastic 4 reboot deserve less than a 3.

But take my word for it, save yourself the time and skip this movie, all you really want to see is within the first minute or so. You're welcome.

Exeter

[Scarecrow-88 · 3/10 · 15 July 2015]

Marcus Nispel finally decides to direct a film that doesn't carry the name of a previously successful horror film. The smell of Night of the Demons '88 hit my nostrils as I watched this. After a booze-and-drugs party at a decaying church/hospital, a few remaining teens stay into the early hours and day to continue their excess of party drugs, weed, and liquor. What they weren't expecting is the conjuring of evil that seems to move from body to body after each human host it invades dies. Bodies must be really destroyed in order for the evil to pass onto the next host. Only one victim seems to survive the invasion and live only for the evil to move on to the next poor soul who isn't so fortunate: the kid brother of the teenager who is a volunteer for a priest working to help "wayward/troubled" youths. Soon the priest is called to help the possessed boy (who just wanted to hang around with his brother and be treated like one of the party-hearty gang), but when he's plowed into by a member of the scared pack, it might be left up to the others to try and exorcise the evil...they aren't capable, though, and soon the evil does its body- swapping invading. The location, with its furnishings, windows, rooms, floors, walls, doors, and furniture all raptured by the parasite of age, is a keeper, even if the story and characters aren't worthy of it. Foul- mouthed dopeheads and drugged-out scabs that these kids are, when they are obliterated in time (when one member of the group is infested by the evil possession, the others must defend themselves using whatever means are necessary) I can't imagine many viewers will give a rat's ass about many of them. The non-member of the group, an outsider who decided to stay after some coaxing, might know more about what is happening that she is letting on. This concerns Devon, a kid left in a box by the priest (Stephen Lang in a throwaway performance) in the church/hospital now in ruins. How does Devon factor into things? That's the question that feeds the twist. Nispel doesn't offer much except the style he had developed and nurtured thanks to studio money thrown at him for Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Friday the 13th. Nothing much else except that garbage-strewn, rot- infected building offers the horror fan some delight. Maybe a bit of violence (half a face is sliced off, with the chopped half's eye peering outward!) does the trick, but the plot's demonic shenanigans are tired.

Crisp and nice, but lacks take off.

[Finfrosk86 · 7/10 · 13 March 2015]

Saw this at Frightfest Glasgow 2015. When I saw Marcus Nispel's name I knew it couldn't be all bad, and right I was! Nispel has made the Friday the 13th-remake, and Texas Chainsaw massacre remake, and I liked both of those so I felt pretty safe.

This is a decent budget, nice, crisp looking movie. Which are qualities I happen to like a lot in horror movies. The actors do their job, nothing special but alright, the effects are good, pacing is pretty solid.

Unfortunately it's nothing special really, it does it's job pretty well, but nothing exceptional. I was kind of waiting for it to "take off" a little more, which it never really seemed to. Had it gone the extra mile, so to speak, it would have been a clear 8 for me.

To sum up: Decent flick, looks nice, good party-factor, some nice gore, couple of laughs, absolutely entertaining.

Solid horror

[amesmonde · 13 May 2015]

At an abandoned asylum, a group of teens looking to party decide to experiment come face to face with the possessed. Their only chance of survival is to uncover the asylum's mysteries.

Director Marcus Nispel's Exter a.k.a The Asylum and Backmask is not as genre self aware as the Tucker and Dale Versus Evil. It is a humorous in places, scary and well scripted by Kirsten Elms. Nispel's offers his first film that isn't a remake or an adaptation with some slick direction and the story tries to put a new spin on old clichés. It's basically an updated take on the Evil Dead formula.

The makeup and special effects are finely executed with effective sound design delivering some jump scares. Elms's screenplay tries to ensure the characters are relevant and it's played straight by the majority of likable characters as they get possessed one by one.

It has a hard hitting opening where a record playing tattooed lady meets her maker. Then there's the typical drinking, drug taking and sex. A twisted head, suicide and levitation are all thrown in for good measure. The dilapidated asylum location and setting add some atmosphere and Stephen Lang's extended cameo gives it some further weight.

While not ground breaking, it's still an entertaining, big budget well paced piece of horror.

Fumbling around between comedy and horror, then falls down like an intoxicated teenager

[quincytheodore · 5/10 · 7 May 2015]

If audience can overlook how people would throw a party at an abandoned asylum, then there are more illogical things Exeter would throw at them. It starts off pretty well with moody ambiance, then it strays with lots of inconsistent plot devices and tremendous amount of clichés. As one might expect, jump scares and the accompanied blaring sound effect are just the first line of typical horror cheap scare it has in store. At the very least, with some gore and silly scenes, it may just be amusing enough.

Excluding the fact that asylum is the least sanitary location to set a party, these moronic party goers are also performing supernatural acts. There are every cliché in the book; poor attempt at exorcism, bizarre communication with other entity, superhuman strength for antagonist, sexy girls with skimpy outfit, loud bangs for shock value and things spawning out of the screen. It's almost a compilation of trend for the last decade of horror movie.

Characters are far from likable, even the lead is like Sam from Transformers and he mumbles just the same. The movie jokingly portrays them in exaggerated stereotypical personalities, but it ends up defining them. It has the sympathetic lead, the jock, the joker and the questionable blond. Perhaps, it would be better as a full blown parody, one character even prances around with underwear the entire time, but it takes itself seriously half the time with brooding back story.

After series of predictable set pieces, it doesn't really set anything original. Some of the gore scenes are quite brutal and they might just be the highlights of the movie. A few of the scenes are pretty fun with enough self-deprecation, they are probably because the stupid character get what is coming to them. The practical effect works well for the gore, although this doesn't exactly replace horror.

It offers a few chuckles and not much thrill. It'd be better if the movie can decide to focus on comedy or horror, but apparently it already has a tough time deciding its title.

Why so underrated?

[spyroskonst · 8/10 · 10 August 2015]

I do not understand why this movie is so underrated. It's fun, entertaining and for a horror/gore fan it gets the job done pretty well.

Not perfect by any means, but a nice film that kept me from beginning till the end. Did not get bored for one sec. Actors are good, editing, special effects and gore all done well. Again it is not perfect, but not that underrated i see here in IMDb. This is not a drama, or action adventure, so by judging it as a horror/gore film it falls between 6-8. No more or less than that.

Do yourself a favor and check this out. It will not write history, but you will have a good 1.5hour watching this.

Unnecessarily Entertaining

[payasoingenioso · 7/10 · 3 March 2021]

The movie stays somewhat cheesy yet very entertaining.

Action. Gore. Humor.

It's almost worth rewatching certain portions.

The Asylum

[a_baron · 3/10 · 24 June 2015]

A group of teens/young adults have a party in a notorious former asylum, and strange things happen. Where have you seen that before? Actually it is not simply strange things but horrible ones. If you are into special effects, you will find something worthwhile in this film, but when you've said that, you've said it all.

Apart from Stephen Lang who plays the priest, no one who appears in "The Asylum" was born when "The Exorcist" was released, but all horror buffs will recognise the influence, especially in the possession of the first of their number.

Is this a demonic spirit? Apparently not, at least not in the conventional sense, but it all gets a bit confusing. The big question is will any of them get out of there alive, and what will they tell the authorities if they do? Gripping stuff. Well, not really, there is such a thing as overkill.

No

[reallyevilboy · 1/10 · 20 October 2015]

I've said in a previous review that there are a lot of terrible horror movies out there.

This is one of them.

At the time of watching this there were lots of positive reviews on IMDb and that's why I watched it. And now that's why I'm writing this review.

I need to warn you people.

Don't watch this.

Acting is bad, story line makes you wince, ending is predictable.

This is why the grading curve of horror is so low. Even with that, it still gets a 1.

Leave Horror to the French..

[shouraigen · 1/10 · 15 August 2015]

This film is absolutely the worst horror picture this year, and the contender's for bad American horror movies this year is huge.. Don't waste one second on this film.. All of the people and movies mentioned in the credits are terrible at their jobs and not one... of those films they worked on was scary.. Want to see scary.. Watch Inside 2007, aka "À l'intérieur" , Martyrs, Frontier , High Tension aka Haute Tension, not French but great "Eden Lake" .even "Le Horde" .this is horror film making.. Back Mask .. BackWash would have been more appropriate.. consists of a gaggle of cliché stupid white kids doing stupid unbelievable stuff.. that makes absolutely sense to no normal person. This film is an affront to your intelligence.. The script is as boring and stupid as every low budget horror film that's been made in the US. since .. well. forever..

Nope

[btchwithanattitude · 1/10 · 1 August 2018]

More of the same stereotypes when it comes to demonic possession. The Ouija board and playing games that attract supernatural entities. But really? WICCANS? Wiccans don't summon like that to harm anyone! They could have chosen within a lot of different pagan groups that do summon demons and spirits but they chose the only group that is completely reluctant when it comes to that. This movie plot came down crashing when wiccans were mentioned as the root cause of the possession. They could have said occultists, Satanists, hedge witches, rootworkers but noooo, WICCANS. They're harmless people. I want the time I invested in watching this movie back.

Not Horrible.....

[kingjoneva · 5/10 · 28 June 2018]

I gave this movie a 5/10 which I guess for a low budget film is not too bad. A lot of people didn't like the humor that was used in the film, but I didn't have a problem with it. The acting was pretty decent and the special effects were surprisingly effective. I watched the movie until the end and didn't feel like my time had been wasted so I call that a success in my book..

Story line is good, acting horrible

[amanda-palmer8707 · 3/10 · 11 September 2018]

The movie recording it's self is like home movie..... The acting is themntryjng to hard

Friday the 13th meets The Excorcist

[p-jonsson · 6/10 · 29 August 2015]

I guess you could say that this movie felt a bit like Friday the 13th meets The Exorcist. Well, I guess that is not entirely fair to The Exorcist since that movie, although being old, is a way better movie than this one. This is not a bad movie but it is no shining star either. It is pretty much what you could expect. A bunch of insanely stupid teenagers boozing and doing insanely stupid and illogical things while a supernatural entity decimates them in various gory ways.

I would say that this movie is pretty decent taken in the context of these kind of movies of course. Insanely stupid, drug inhaling teenager is not exactly stellar material for a really good movie after all. I fail to understand why this theme seems to be so popular among horror movie makers. Also, with the amount of booze and drugs the idiots consume they should hardly be standing during most of the movie. There are some of us out here that would like a well done, intelligent horror movie once in a while after all. If that is what you are looking for this one is not your movie though.

Exeter is a fairly standard recipe type of movie. Previously mentioned gang of insanely stupid teenagers (with possibly one exception) decides to have a party at an abandoned asylum with a dark history (of course). The asylum is a depressing and filthy ruin so why anyone would want to have a party there is beyond me. The booze and drugs flows and after a while these idiots, to no ones surprise, decides to perform some dark ritual. As everyone can guess this leads to a sequence of badness and mayhem.

Most of said teenagers behaves in the usual insane, illogical and downright ludicrous way as the supernatural events comes pouring down on them. Naturally their numbers starts to dwindle after a while due to various more or less spectacular and gory episodes involving sharp as well as blunt objects and body parts being removed from their natural places.

This is far from the worst teenage horror movie I have seen. The acting apart from the illogical and silly behavior, which of course was in the script, is not too shoddy and the movie is generally not badly implemented with reasonable special effects and a suitably dark and sinister ambiance in the run down asylum ruin. As a horror movie and a gore fix it is quite passable. Do not really expect to be scared though. The movie is quite predictable and the story is mainly a vehicle to deliver a sequence of gruesome scenes at regular intervals.

This is a comedy, right ?

[samtimoney-79758 · 1/10 · 20 October 2018]

Stupid nonsense, this film is so bad I thought it was a comedy, I actually had to check if this was a comedy, I've never seen a bigger heap of nonsense and trust me I've seen a lot. It started off ok but then it rapidly declined as soon as the boy/girl (I couldn't tell which) was revealed as being possessed. No story, no decent characters and no fun, so trash it's funny

Loved it.

[maxpc · 8/10 · 19 June 2015]

This was one of the best scary movies I've seen since Insidious, and I've seen all there is since the early 70's (and also own them all). Even though it probably classifies as a B movie, I was extremely surprised.

It's very repetitive with the scary scenes and dialogue but it got my heart going a few times and kept my eyes on the screen instead of the clock.

I also found it original enough and new enough to enjoy it more than I thought I would.

Another low-budget movie I thought I would discard within the first ten minutes but got drawn into it.

Not that bad

[dctr666 · 7/10 · 20 August 2015]

After reading the previous reviews, from other users, I had some distrust, regarding this movie... So, after some delays, I decided to give it a view... and I was quite surprised... OK, it's not original, nor award-winning, but, it's very entertaining, from start to bottom.. Even though some details, can resemble with The Evil Dead, truth is that this movie has nothing to do with The Evil Dead, and I think that there was no intention on creating any sort of "connection" with both. Give it a try... I gave it, and I'm not that disappointed... even my wife, usually so demanding, on movies that she watches, was surprised with the movie, even more, after reading the bad reviews posted here.

Oh so predictable...

[Leofwine_draca · 4/10 · 16 February 2016]

THE ASYLUM is a film that's so predictable that the plot is almost mind-numbing to write out: a group of teenagers decide to hold a debauched party at an abandoned old asylum, only to mess with the occult and inadvertently summon up some demonic forces.

Such a story has been the basis for countless forgettable horror B-movies, so this film needs to do something special to stand out from the crowd. Needless to say it doesn't. Marcus Nispel is the director (you may remember him from the old Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE remake) but fails to do much with the material, which looks and feels like your usual US B-movie.

The characters are irritating, the dialogue rings hollow, the acting isn't up to scratch. The demonic possession stuff feels very low key and unscary, with the EVIL DEAD remake an obvious inspiration. The only stuff I liked was that the special effects are pretty decent, especially when things get gruesome in the second half, but they're not enough to make this a good film. Stephen Lang (AVATOR) plays a priest caught up in the madness.

Cliché elimination derby starring a possession.

[suite92 · 1/10 · 23 September 2016]

The Three Acts:

The initial tableaux: We get a triple bite opening. First a drug user gets killed after shooting up. That was quite short Second, we get horrid archival footage of the Exeter asylum's failed history as a mental institution, where children were killed en masse. It is rumoured to be haunted by the spirits of those slaughtered. Third, in modern times, the Exeter asylum is being renovated by a church. A number of strongly degenerate teens decide to have a drugs/drinks/smokes party at the asylum. Horror clichés dictate a lot of deaths later in the film.

Delineation of conflicts: The youths vandalise the place, urinating and vomiting on the walls, dumping trash everywhere, and breaking fixtures. So it's the youths against whatever spirits they rouse by their attempt at levitation. Can this motley crew of useless teens manage to placate that which possesses Rory?

Resolution: Do all of the teens die horribly, or just most of them?