The Last Exorcism (2010) User Reviews

A decent film for people who like AND understand horror

[rjn538 · 7/10 · 27 August 2010]

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.

A Good Movie with a Poor Conclusion

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 24 January 2011]

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")

A solid frightener for Halloween, if you let the film take you where it wants to take you

[moviexclusive · 7/10 · 28 October 2010]

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.

Score another one for hand-held horror

[Cujo108 · 12 September 2010]

Cotton Marcus is a minister who performs fake exorcisms for money. Raised by his reverend father, he has been doing this since he was a child, but he has come to question his faith or whether he ever even truly had any at all. After reading about a kid who died during a botched exorcism, Cotton decides to have a film crew document his final fake exorcism in an attempt to prove what a farce the whole thing is and prevent others from dying. The subject of the exorcism is Nell Sweetzer, a teenage girl who lives with her father and brother in rural Louisiana. Things don't go as planned.

I am incredibly fond of the hand-held sub-genre of horror that has become increasingly popular over the last decade. With the exception of "The St. Francisville Experiment", I have yet to see one that I've outright hated. Even George Romero's heavily maligned "Diary of the Dead" wasn't horrible, though I did find it a disappointing effort overall. For me, the first person point of view works like a charm in creating a more intimately frightening atmosphere. "The Last Exorcism" proves to be yet another example of this. The backwoods Louisiana locations are eerie enough to begin with, but they're further magnified by the first person style. What we see is never said to be found footage either, so the presence of a music score and the varying camera angles didn't bother me. I just see it as a film seen from the viewpoint of a documentary crew's camera, not as if it were someone's found footage being shown to me.

"The Last Exorcism" doesn't jump right into it's horror, as it spends a fair amount of time on character development. That's always refreshing, especially since the horror genre is so often devoid of it. It's also of particular importance here, as Cotton's character arc really pays off in the end. The image of him walking towards the flames, cross raised, has been burned into my mind since watching this film. It's a potent moment, all the more so due to the story's focus on character building. The acting is also most impressive, and there isn't a bad performance in the bunch. Patrick Fabian truly reminded me of an actual preacher in spite of his character's stance for most of the picture. Ashley Bell was also fantastic as the girl possessed, while Iris Bahr gives the film's most underrated performance as one of the documentarians. Louis Herthum does well as Nell's father, but the fluctuations in his character bothered me. He seemed to jump from one conclusion to another too quickly, and the scene of him chasing the crew around the house with his shotgun felt awkward. The writing for his character was my main issue with the film.

When the horror does show up, it's of the more subdued variety. Daniel Stamm focuses his film's scares more on the unnerving mood of the wooded area and the religious themes. Like the characters, the mood is allowed to build. The exorcism scene in the barn isn't as over-the-top as one might expect, which is frankly something that I appreciated. The lack of outlandish effects and ridiculous hysterics was a plus rather than a minus. The quiet, understated form of horror is almost always more effective than an in your face approach. As for the ending, I'm firmly in the camp of being all for it. It was a wonderful little throwback to all the devil cult pictures of the 70's, and it's clearly hinted at throughout the film. As mentioned earlier, it also brings Cotton's character arc to it's pinnacle, leading to that haunting shot foretold by Nell's drawing. Aside from the 70's cult influence, you can also see shades of both "The Blair Witch Project" and "Cannibal Holocaust" in the ending.

I must admit that I didn't expect much out of this one. It flew under my radar for a good while, but I'm pleased to say that it wound up being a welcome highlight in a year that has been quite weak for the horror genre.

Good movie

[lukab-08491 · 7/10 · 20 July 2019]

I liked the movie but it wasn't too scary in my opinion.

Last Exorcism-- it worked for me

[matt-s-switzer · 7/10 · 14 October 2010]

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.

An underwhelming effort

[meininky · 5/10 · 19 August 2010]

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.

More of a scared movie than a scary movie

[MosHr · 6/10 · 20 August 2010]

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.

Worse than Blair Witch only in slightly better focus

[carl5 · 2/10 · 25 June 2010]

Anyone who remembers Blair Witch will have a neon light in their brains flashing "Rip Off!"

Anyone who remembers The Exorcist will have sirens and lights along with the flashing "Rip Off! sign.

And that's before the "Rosemary's Baby" TOTAL F*CKING RIPOFF alarm bells sound.

Knowledgeable Christians will gasp at a Baptist minister waving around a Catholic cross, and why he's fluent in the Latin of his Catholic book of demons having never studied it. And the mish-mash of religious icons, many of them Catholic, decorating the house of a fervent fundamentalist.

Despite earnest, professional performances from the entire cast, the amateurism of the writers and director can't be overcome. For example, the filmmakers (or rather, videomakers) idea of "foreshadowing" is to show a drawing of something or someone dying and then five minutes later we see that event actually happening. Oooh.

And it has probably the worst "non ending" in film history. Nothing is answered. You won't know what happened to anyone except the faux cameraman who gets killed just like the drawing showed he would five minutes earlier. But apparently his final act in life is to turn off his camera so the movie ends. I guess all those Rip Off alarms were foreshadowing the audience getting ripped off.

Producer Eli Roth told the premiere audience that the marketing for this movie would be 100% word of mouth and fan-driven, which is industry speak meaning the distributor was not going to spend a nickel advertising this piece of... (Smart distributor.) Roth implored the crowd to tweet and post positive reviews of this movie, adding that "if you don't like it, please keep your f*cking mouth shut!"

Director Daniel Stamm also warned the front row audience that they were going to get motion sickness, meaning they never used a tripod or steadicam. The camera movement wasn't that bad, but never rose above the run and gun video style of any COPS episode.

If you're 16, have zero knowledge of any past horror movies, and get scared by LOUD BANGS, then this movie is for you. The further away you are from those three criteria, the further away you should run from this movie.

Feels Repetitive

[CSHaviland · 6/10 · 28 August 2010]

I could not shake the feeling, while watching The Last Exorcism, that I was watching a movie I'd seen before. The character POV format (pseudo-documentary horror, unfolding through the camera of a character) was attempted by a low budget movie called The Last Broadcast in 1998. Perhaps the title of The Last Exorcism pays homage to The Last Broadcast for originating that trend. (One can trace the pseudo-documentary horror back much further however, such as with The Legend of Boggy Creek in 1972, which used the documentary style of its day -- before the popularization of home video and prosumer-grade video cameras.)

However most people didn't see The Last Broadcast. It had no theatrical distribution. The Blair Witch Project took the exact same idea and executed it better in 1999. They were fortunate enough to land a limited theatrical release with Artisan Entertainment, who came up with a shrewd marketing campaign that drove an unprecedented amount of hype, causing it to sell out a day in advance in some theaters (such as at the Angelika in Greenwich Village, New York City). The publicity turned the format into its own sub-genre, which got old just as fast as it started. It was popular originally because many people were duped (or allowed themselves to be duped) into thinking it might be real video footage left behind by victims of some mysterious murderer. Unfortunately once everyone understood it was fiction, the genie was out of the bottle. It's like learning how stage magicians saw people in half. Once you know the secret, the act is no longer so appealing.

Nevertheless, filmmakers have attempted to repeat the formula and apply it in different ways. Frankly I thought Paranormal was better than The Last Exorcism because, even though everyone knew it was fake-reality fiction. Paranormal was fun to watch unfold, and was sufficiently spooky to sustain disbelief. The Last Exorcism's marketing team wisely didn't promote the movie as being "lost footage" or anything like that, because not only has the novelty run out, it's become more of an insult to the target audience.

The filmmakers simply told their story through the camera held by one of the characters. Which is not as easy at it sounds -- you have to look for excuses to keep that camera running without being contrived, so we don't miss important dialog or plot points.

The actors in The Last Exorcist did a fine job, especially Patrick Fabian who carried 90% of the movie on his back. If he couldn't sell us on the right mixture of ignorance, charisma, and genuine empathy, the movie would have been a dismal failure. The real problem with The Last Exorcism was that the setup took too long. Things didn't get "horrifying" until about the last quarter of the movie, and that didn't leave enough time to play it out. The other problem is that the sense of peril was forced. The only reason our main character, Reverend Cotton Marcus, put his team into danger is because he insisted on helping young woman and her family at all costs, even when he didn't know what was really going on, knew he was over his head, and wouldn't -- despite all rational thinking -- call the police. Unlike The Blair Witch Project, they weren't lost in the woods and helpless to get out of their situation.

I was also confused by the ending. I wasn't exactly sure of the motives behind the cult around the campfire. Were they against the demon or not? If they were against the demon, why did they attack our characters? I feel like I missed something.

A little more work on the script would have helped this movie.

A disappointing waste of talent and time

[aharris794 · 2/10 · 29 August 2010]

The only saving grace of this movie is that the majority of the actors gave it their all and pulled off great individual performances considering what they were given to work with. Don't get me wrong, the ensemble did not work cohesively in the film at all.

Like many of you have already seen, the previews to this movie are misleading, making this look like an attempt at an old school horror flick. The story is original, in that Pastor Marcus is "filming this documentary in an attempt to expose exorcism for the scam that it is", but finds a genuine demonic possession. There was no need to 'trick' film-goers by making the previews this way; it just sets them up for disappointment.

Personally, I was completely surprised at the beginning of the film, in a good way; it seemed that I was going to get an original story line! But alas, I was setting my hopes too high. Predictable "twists" came one after another, and 30 minutes into the film, I had it figured out.

The film never developed an even pace, and certain elements became increasingly frustrating by the end of the movie, for instance, the "cameraman" only using the camera's light a third of the time it would have been appropriate for him to do so; the shaky-cam "found footage" technique executed without any originality; and the fact that this film had a musical score all killed the escapism, keeping me from believing a minute of the story.

I'm not even going to bring up the details of the ridiculous excuse of an ending. I had hoped Eli Roth would have tried something other than the "doesn't make any sense and takes everything away from the film" ending that effects every movie he's attached to, but even as a producer, the ending has his fingerprints all over it.

Mr. Roth, you owe us all more. Get back to Cabin Fever - you showed so much potential, and yet your skills have yet to mature.

Finally, a original horror movie !

[Viva_Chiba · 10/10 · 26 September 2010]

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 !

Works Pretty Well Up to the End

[evanston_dad · 7/10 · 22 February 2011]

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

Not terrible, but not good either.

[Calicodreamin · 5/10 · 17 September 2019]

The first 3/4 of this movie is quite boring. Following a standoffish ex-priest whose hell bent on showing that demons aren't real. The cinematography style is first person documentary which isn't always my favorite. While nothing is fundamentally wrong with the movie, it just gets rather weird and doesn't make much sense. And it's not very scary.

The trickster

[chaos-rampant · 11 January 2012]

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".

Characters and psychological chills over gore and flashy special effects:

[hugopagani · 7/10 · 21 October 2010]

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).

Unnecessary ending

[mwrp · 7/10 · 1 June 2020]

I absolutely liked the tone and the theme movie showed. But last 10 or so minutes were unnecessary and completely out of tone for the movie.

Horror fans, AVOID this film

[CUMSHOT · 1/10 · 16 August 2010]

I saw this at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival on August 16th.

-I had a bad feeling before the movie began when they introduced Eli Roth & the two main actors, including the leading woman who plays the possessed chick. Eli cracked way too many jokes, humoring & hyping up the crowd. I thought this was a bad move, as if we're supposed to treat this like a Scream-type experience. Fun, but enjoy the 'boo!'-like scares. I thought it would've been better off to just turn off the lights & start the movie, setting the mood for something terrifying. It didn't help that we were introduced the actors first, making it hard to buy into the story.

-There's way too much humor in this movie that it became impossible to suspend my beliefs & be involved in the story.

-After a suspenseful moment, it would be followed up by another wise crack. The audience by far laughed more than letting out scares.

-It's supposedly 'found footage'...but it has a score?! During all build ups for the suspenseful moments, you'll hear a note from a cello, or eerie ambiance as if you were watching a film...but we're supposed to believe that this is documentary video? -These were actors acting to a script, there was no sense of improv a la REC & REC 2. The exchange in dialogue, reactions appeared way too rehearsed.

-There's one camera man filming this thing. But the editing/camera work was amateurish. I.E. There's a shot of the main priest taking off his blazer, then immediately cuts to the opposite angle showing him finishing taking off his blazer, as if it were done in one shot. It looked like there were either 2 camera men, or had another camera placed on a tripod capturing the shot. Way too many instances of this happening, it looked too professionally done for a 'found footage' type documentary. The reason why REC was far more effective is because the actors weren't told much of the things that would happen during scenes. Also, lot of the footage was done in one or just a few takes, which mostly were long, drawn out shots.

-The last 10 minutes of the movie made me wonder how many times they must have changed their minds how it should've ended. It was a mess, & will leave you in disbelief for all the wrong reasons.

I love my horror, I really wanted to like this movie, I'm not comparing it to The Exorcist, my girlfriend treated me on my birthday to watch this & we were both immensely disappointed. Eli Roth introduced this movie saying they wanted to create something original, I can only surmise that it did just that in showing how to deliver something so watered down & downright trailerpark movie trash.

Am I the only one who loved this movie?

[jps22692 · 7/10 · 5 February 2012]

I feel like the majority of the reviews for this movie are negative. I just don't understand why? I thought that The Last Exorcism was one of the best films to come out of "The Exorcist" sub-genre in a long time. The film is a mockumentary about a minister who wants to have his last exorcism documented to show the world that these exorcisms are fake. But soon things become way to real for the minister when he realizes he's facing an actually possession.

I thought the movie was well acted,Patrick Fabian did a superb job as the lead and the supporting roles were portrayed very well. Of course it is a mockumentary so it is a hand-held camera movie. If you don't like them... well don't watch this.

I liked that the movie threw in some comedy as well that kept you entertained in the earlier parts of the film. However a downside is that there is a lull in action in the middle of the movie where it gets kind've boring. But the last 45 minutes or so is full of action so wait it out.

Now from what I've read on here and other sites nobody cared for the ending of this movie. I however thought is was great and not cliché like most exorcism movies. I don't want to give away too many spoilers so i'll leave it at that.

I would definitely recommend this movie for any horror movie fan and fans of "exorcism" movies. Don't expect tons of scares but with a great cast and great writing The Last Exorcism entertained me up until the shocking end.

What happened to horror movies??

[skaterfreak809 · 2/10 · 29 August 2010]

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.

Pretty decent movie

[paoloribas · 7/10 · 4 August 2013]

I had little hopes of this turning out to be a good movie, but I was actually pleased with what I saw.

This movie is about a demonic possession in a teenager girl and the botched exorcisms performed by a famous preacher. Although the plot is somewhat overused, this one shows it by the perspective of a FAITHLESS (mark this word) preacher, who has a vast religious background, but lost his faith after some events and states it clearly that he doubts his beliefs and even the existence of God and demons. He keeps his preaching, but works more like a "church artist" rather than a true spiritual leader. He is then called by a possessed teenage girl's father to perform an exorcism on her, and accepts the challenge. He takes a documentary crew with him to prove exorcisms weren't real.

The paranormal events happened in a rural property where that man, Mr. Sweetzer, lives with his delinquent son and his daughter, both teenagers. He truly believes his daughter is possessed and calls the famous preacher to help saving her. Unfortunately, it all goes wrong for him.

What I liked the most in this movie is the whole thing about the preacher's lack of faith, for he could have succeeded on his job or at least saved himself and his crew if he at least had some spiritual power/knowledge about what he was really facing. He saw the possession with his own eyes, but kept denying it because his rational, but ignorant mind wasn't being able to understand it. He even had the chance to truly exorcise the demon, but the lack of faith on his speech was so evident that it was barely amused. Other subtle and funny thing is that he told Mr. Sweetzer to not believe in the devil's lies, but he believed in all of them himself!

I don't believe this movie is anti-Christian, but rather delivers a good message about true faith, so rare in these days.

The acting on this movie is good, for the preacher is a very good actor, the character development is good too and so is the plot and the message about faith. I gave it a 7/10.

Possibly the Worst horror flick ever?

[g-smart966 · 1/10 · 21 August 2010]

I usually like low-budget horror movies. I really wanted to like this, but it SUCKS. The whole production is amateurish. It's all done hand-held and very shaky. You are supposed to believe this whole thing was found-footage. The audience I saw it with were laughing more than being scared. That's because it's very hard to take the movie seriously. The priest (Cotton) is not the worst actor but the way he's filmed destroys any credibility the movie could have had. The last ten or fifteen minutes were so bad I could not believe they released it that way. Oh well. I was hoping to get scared but I was just either bored, or laughing at how bad it was. It's too bad because it had potential to be scary but it just blew it. It's just way too amateurish and long.

Great suspense drama thats had a grossly misleading marketing hype

[theycallmemrglass · 8/10 · 26 August 2010]

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.

Decent

[devils_neighbor_667 · 7/10 · 8 February 2020]

A decent Exorcism movie with creative chills even if the ending feels somewhat unfinished

What the............

[scrumpot666 · 2/10 · 28 August 2010]

The commercials said I would be scared. They said this was the scariest movie I would ever see...........I wanted to be scared silly.......I wasn't. This movie was not scary. It was silly. Things started out just fine. But there wasn't any "real" demon possession. Just "wanna be" evil. If you loved the Exorcist you will hate The Last Exorcism. The movie ended 45 minutes ago and I am still scratching my head trying to figure out why it ended the way it did. Did they run out of ideas? Were they pressed for time? Did the actors and crew have something else they needed to do? Did they know they were going to end up with a stupid movie? Don't waste your time or your money. Go to the rental place and get Paranormal Activitiy and watch it again.