The Last Exorcism

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.