The Last Exorcism

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")

I had been anticipating The Last Exorcism for a while now, and I finally got the chance to watch it.

First off, the film is cleverly constructed and written. Yes, it is again a mockumentary-style horror film, but there is an engaging storyline behind it. Reverend Cotton Marcus is an exorcist, but the thing is, he doesn't believe in demons or possessions. He believes that what he does lets others sleep well and that he heals them in a way, and does not believe in the word 'fraud'. This is a very interesting character, and to me, obviously flawed, but still human and sympathetic. When he goes to a farm where a girl named Nell is supposed to be possessed, well, I do not want to give much more away. The film is certainly clever, and it does have some nice scares. It also has a great central performance from both Patrick Fabian and Ashley Bell. The film is always on the verge of giving one hysteria just because of what the characters are going through.

The very good thing is that this is an unpredictable film. I wouldn't necessarily call it brainless horror fun, because I am sure seeing a lot of this to many would probably disturb them. After reading reviews, from people who both liked and disliked this film, it seems that a big part of their criticism came from the ending. I was excited to see what the ending would be. It seems that when a film, not just a horror film, has an ending this talked about then it is to be congratulated for at least sparking up debate this much. Yes, maybe I do give it credit in that department, but as of now, I could have probably been left with a better impression without the ending. Much of the film's intelligence comes from the fact of what aspect of faith and religion play in a part like this, and how satirical the film was at times as well. It is not that the ending erased this, but it is that it certainly gives off a whole different storyline to what the film actually was. I am still not sure what point it was trying to make by this ending. Oh, and I didn't like the complete last shot because I definitely thought that it was unoriginal, as it has been seen by possibly all of the other shaky-cam horrors out there. It was probably the only unoriginal and completely lazy thing about the film, not the ending reveal, but the complete last shot and the way it actually ended.

Ultimately, I really like this film, a lot. I am still not quite sure why I liked it so much, but I did. The ending is certain to anger a lot of people off, it already did, and will possibly be the reason many hate it and the reason it has such a low score on here. However, is it truly a 'bad' ending? I don't really think it is, well besides the complete last shot of the film, I just think it is underwhelming to what we had seen before. I am not really sure if I truly liked it more or disliked it more, but the film is certainly worth a watch. I also think that this film will perhaps benefit from repeat viewings, unlike a lot of these type of horrors. It may not be as scary or as fun as last year's Paranormal Activity, but it is perhaps more complex.

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".

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.

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.