web
counter
 

So Damn Sure Of Ourselves, Aren't We?

By Agent Bedhead | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (44)



lastexorcism2sm.jpg

It’s not easy being a horror fan these days. One need only witness the recent crop of horror fare, particularly in regard to the flaccid remakes of 1980s slasher movies, to realize that a certain segment of today’s audiences have grown accustomed to tidy little resolutions. Of course, this phenomenon is not confined to any specific genre, but horror movies are particularly guilty of being exclusively plot-driven and stocked with wholly undeveloped characters or, at the most, a handful of semi-developed characters for whom the audience doesn’t feel any real emotional involvement because, well, it’s pretty fucking difficult to cozy up to archetypes (no bedside manner or anything) who are probably gonna die anyway. At the same time, audiences aren’t entirely opposed to characterization or a story that ends with a good mindfuck, just so long as there’s fair warning before execution. Just look at the success of Inception, which was presumed (either by one’s preexisting knowledge of the director or by watching the trailers) to be such a mindbending picture that it would absolutely require multiple viewings, but that’s what folks have come to expect whenever Christopher Nolan is involved. Yet no one presumes that such thought processes should occur when watching a movie called The Last Exorcism, which shatters that expectation and several other conceits along the way.

As it happens, the original title of this movie isn’t even The Last Exorcism but Cotton. Now, any marketing department worth a damn realizes that a movie title should instantly declare something about its subject matter. Unfortunately, this title change is somewhat misleading because, sure, there is indeed an exorcism ceremony, which is intended to be the very last one of its kind, but this is very much story about the Reverend Cotton Marcus (expertly rendered by Patrick Fabian of “Big Love” and “Veronica Mars”). Another contributing factor in potential audience confusion is the conceit involved with so-called “found footage” films: Shaky camera work; lazy, Swiss-cheese plot explained away as gaps in the footage; annoying and threadbare characters; and, most of all, a reliance upon the gimmick by all involved. However, The Last Exorcism is not really “found footage” but, in fact, a nearly completed documentary. To explain any further would breach spoiler territory other than to state that the polish factor is pretty damn high and, at a certain point, an interruption occurred in the planned documentary process. What takes place might appear inconceivable, but that’s part of the plan here because we see the entire story from the point of view of Cotton, who essentially loses control over a situation that he’s been rehearsing for his entire life. Some might not be comfortable with this lack of predictability, but any other ending would be inconsistent with the main character’s identity.

Now, speaking of preconceived expectations — we’ve all got them concerning one of this movie’s producers, and the general expectation is that I shall wax rhapsodic over the merits of anything that this dude touches.

But seriously, fuck Eli Roth.

Roth didn’t direct this movie, nor did he write the script. Quite simply, he acts in the capacity of “producer,” which is a wholly ambiguous term and not really important for our purposes. I suspect that Roth was heavily involved as an advisor and during post-production phrases as well as successfully confining this movie to a $1.8 million budget, but this movie isn’t what an audience would expect from his involvement and bears little overt evidence of his mainstream handiwork. This movie, quite properly, was helmed by Daniel Stamm, who quickly proves himself quite adept at establishing a subtle interplay between characters that builds to an unsettling crescendo (at about the 2/3 mark, when my right knee began to shake and never stopped) and continues until the end. Somehow, Stamm manages to do so without relying upon jump shots (just a solitary use towards the beginning) to scare his audience but, instead, preys upon the inherent creepiness involved with finding oneself irrevocably removed from the nearest comfort zone. The fact that the characters unyieldingly refuse to bend their viewpoints forms the essence of this film with fascinating results.

As mentioned, the central focus rests upon Reverend Cotton Marcus, an intelligent, quick-witted man and charismatic 2nd-generation congregation frontman, who began assisting during his father’s sermons at an early age. Basically, he’s the Diamond Dave of preachers — a natural performer who even pulls out his own special effects — yet never loses sight of his objectives: “Get em’ saved,” and more importantly, “Get ‘em in the wallet.” He’s a swaggering showman who can work his congregation up to such raptures that he can begin preaching a banana bread recipe and his patrons never even notice the difference, which makes it slightly understandable that Cotton has long since experienced a “crisis of faith” and has deferred to autopilot status. Even his notoriety as an exorcist is completely founded upon pomp and ceremony, for Cotton believes in neither God nor demons; but the fact that exorcism is alive and well (he slyly alludes to Catholics getting all the press because “they have the movie.”) has given him an opportunity to genuinely help people by convincing them that they’ve been freed from evil spirits. Until the present, Cotton has observed that all of this possession nonsense is just a psychological matter, but he certainly doesn’t mind making a nice wad of cash from the process of helping people. When asked by Iris whether he’s a fraud, Cotten responds, “That’s your word, not mine.”

So, with The Last Exorcism, any preexisting conceits from familiar horror tropes have been replaced with the conceit of the main character. That’s Cotton: a liar and a fraud but not an inherently evil person, and he’s got no reason to lie to the camera. He’s the unreliable narrator who admits his unreliability upfront and professes, quite genuinely, to be done with his past. In fact, he’s already contemplating what his next career movie will be: “Maybe I’ll sell real estate,” which would, presumably, require less deception on his part. Essentially, Cotton’s developed something of a conscience since becoming a father and is genuinely disturbed by newspaper reports of children killed during exorcisms gone bad. So, he’s consented to performing one final ceremony while being filmed “to expose exorcism for the scam that it is.” At random, he plucks a letter from his growing pile of requests and heads to Ivanwood, Louisiana where young Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell), a sweet and unassuming homeschooled girl, has been killing off the family livestock. Her father, Louis (Louis Herthum), is convinced that Nell is possessed by the devil. Naturally, Cotton has scientific explanations for every symptom exhibited by Nell, but he appeases the family by performing an exorcism with the expectation that Nell will snap out of it.

Shortly thereafter, it becomes obvious that Cotton is fully unprepared to deal with the situation at hand and also too stuck in his ways to accept that demons might truly exist. Similarly, Louis’ staunch fundamentalism causes him to demand that Cotton continue to attempt saving Nell, and both men refuse to acknowledge that perhaps their respective beliefs might not lead to the absolute truth. So, while Cotton’s doing his best Vegas lounge act and Louis alternately issues physical threats and cries silent tears, the two characters men engage in a war of wills while dodging the intervening viewpoints of Nell’s brother, Caleb (Caleb Landry Jones), and a member of the documentary crew, Iris (Iris Baher). Meanwhile, Nell’s situation spookily deteriorates in a very solid performance from Ashley Bell, who not only contorts her own body but also stretches to accommodate both personalities emanating from her character. The end result is a successful movie with a smart, character-driven script, which turns upon subtleties within finely-tuned performances; and, while Stamm ultimately drops several clues, he provides no single, definitive answer on the science-religion debate. Wisely so, for it would have been awfully presumptuous for him to do so.

Quite fittingly, the movie concludes by placing the audience (at least, those who want things spelled out for them) outside of their own comfort zone. There is no Kaiser Söze moment when Cotton miraculously recovers from a stutter and a limp before jumping into a chauffeured ride while the camera pans back towards an eternally double-taking detective, a literal wall full of clues, and a fax machine-dictated reveal. In fact, the so-called “big reveal” involved with the last few minutes leaves far more open questions than concrete answers, which could be slightly bewildering. Of course, if one doesn’t react defensively and simply takes a couple of hours to mull things over, a finely textured series of layers shall begin to reveal themselves. The Last Exorcism is meant to inspire thought, which just might be its downfall amongst an audience who indiscriminately embraces stuff like the Prom Night remake or, for that matter, the basic existence of the Transformers franchise. Anyone who expects a traditional resolution to Cotton Marcus’ story — some sort of clear victory or loss — will likely declare the ending to be “stupid” and sound just as unaware and cocksure as Cotton himself.

As the latest in a wave of PG-13 horror flicks, The Last Exorcism poses several similarities to Sam Raimi’s Drag Me to Hell in regard to a mix of comical and creepy moments in a tale of psychological horror with minimal gore. This movie neither rips off nor attempts to stand in the place of The Exorcist and blows away much lesser fare like The Exorcism of Emily Rose and Constantine. Reactions will suffer somewhat from Lionsgate’s marketing tactics — which, leading up to the release date, edged into what so-called experts would describe as “guerrilla marketing” — that may have misled a significant percentage of audience members. Still, studios are just learning to feel their way around the internet and, when opening weekend is everything, studios opt to reel ‘em in and deal with the rest of it at a later date…. again, justs like Cotton Marcus.

Agent Bedhead lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She and her little black heart can be found at agentbedhead.com.









Exclusive: Kissing Jessica Stein (and Jon Hamm's Girlfriend) Jennifer Westfeldt Set for Emmy-Themed "Life of O'Reilly" | The Television One-Off: Ten Recent and Current TV Actors Who Will Fade into Obscurity After Their Respective Shows End













Comments

Great review. You turned me up to 11.

Posted by: superasente at August 30, 2010 2:22 PM

That was a truly great review.

Posted by: Theseus at August 30, 2010 2:27 PM

after hearing bad word-of-mouth about this, you have turned me around.

this has got to be one of the more thoughtful bedhead reviews i've seen. kudos!

Posted by: gp at August 30, 2010 2:38 PM

Saw this yesterday, and it was quite good. The actors and their characters are the basis of its quality. Finding out the title was originally "Cotton" makes sense.

Mild spoiler


I wouldn't say, however, that it doesn't have a traditional ending. If you are familiar with the author M.R. James or works of horror from the late 19th century early 20th century, the ending was predictable. Or the book "Publish or Perish" by James Hynes, who writes the stories as a homage to James. The process in the film is enjoyable, yet to me, the ending is a letdown.

Posted by: racahel at August 30, 2010 2:40 PM

Yes, well-done. I had zero interest in this movie before (my reaction to all the marketing has been, "Wasn't this done a couple of years ago and called ...Emily Rose?"), but now my curiosity is piqued.

Off to the movie theater timetables!

Posted by: Anna von Beav at August 30, 2010 2:42 PM

I wasn't interested before, but now I am.
Terrible marketing.
Great review.

Posted by: Simon at August 30, 2010 3:02 PM

I... am... speechless.

Eli Roth produced it -- and it's GOOD? Really? Are you absolutely 100% sure we're talking about the exorcism movie with Eli Roth's name on the credits?

(Checks calendar to make sure its not April 1).

I... am... speechless.

Posted by: Irving Washington at August 30, 2010 3:12 PM

Before all this praise gets out of control, I'd like to form the line to fellate you right here.

I slit the sheet, the sheet I slit, and on the slitted sheet I sit.

Okay. I'm ready.

Posted by: superasente at August 30, 2010 3:13 PM

I'm going to see it. It better not suck. ;)

Posted by: jvon at August 30, 2010 3:19 PM

Big Love? Veronica Mars? Please. He is no one else but Professor Jeremiah Lasky from Saved By The Bell: The College Years, and don't you forget it.

I'm pretty sold on this now. I may just see it this weekend.

Posted by: Courtney at August 30, 2010 3:26 PM

I saw it this weekend and I liked it. The next movie I'm anxiously waiting for is Monsters which has the same vibe.

Posted by: John W at August 30, 2010 3:43 PM

Professor Jeremiah Lasky from Saved By The Bell: The College Years! That's what I remember (and love) him from!

EEEEEEEE, Courtney, I love you!

Posted by: Katers at August 30, 2010 4:08 PM

Oh, and great review and now I want to see this.

For all the Professor Lasky.

Posted by: Katers at August 30, 2010 4:09 PM

I had absolutely zero interest in this movie.
Then I read that VMar's Landry was in it and I felt obligated to see it.
But after getting sucked into your wonderful review, I now want to see it for the actual film- Bravo

Posted by: gee. ay. at August 30, 2010 4:40 PM

perfect review. vey to go, bedhead.

Posted by: Jimbo at August 30, 2010 5:59 PM

why do demons always posess pre/pubescent girls? Is that like a supernatural law or something

Posted by: idleprimate at August 30, 2010 6:03 PM

Agent Bedhead Career Assessment (So Far):

Pretty goddamned impressive, looking forward to more.

I was fully expecting a Serbian Film-evisceration of this "guerilla-marketed" movie (damn, already I'm using D-Day's verbiage), and with Eli Roth's name attached, it seemed like a done deal.

This actual, honest-to-God review successfully details the storyline and the performances without preoccupying itself with inserting lame criticisms for comic value to distract the reader, and was even thoughtful enough to answer my own curiosity as to how it stacked up against 'Emily Rose' and 'Constantine', two movies this die-hard gore fan was pretty entertained by.

Nicest surprise I had today.

Posted by: abliac at August 30, 2010 6:42 PM

Well, all of the Rev. Cottons I've ever come across were black.

Posted by: Pookie at August 30, 2010 6:50 PM

Pookie never fails to make me laugh.

Posted by: jesuschrysler at August 30, 2010 9:22 PM

What a wonderful read - heck, you may have even convinced me to see this (I had absolutely no interest in what I assumed would be a schlocky, stupid film).

Posted by: Cindy at August 30, 2010 9:47 PM

I still think the ending was a cop out.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at August 31, 2010 12:50 AM

I saw the trailer while waiting for Inception to start and was genuinely freaked out. As a manly man with shitloads of hair on my legs, I think this is a pretty good thing. Not so much for me, perhaps.

Posted by: sailboat at August 31, 2010 1:20 AM

Anyone who expects a traditional resolution to Cotton Marcus’ story — some sort of clear victory or loss — will likely declare the ending to be “stupid” and sound just as unaware and cocksure as Cotton himself.

And that's what happened at the screening I hit. The moment the title cards came up, the 2 Jersey Shore wannabes behind me stood up and proclaimed how stupid the movie was. They were echoed by the various fat yentas who'd somehow found their way in.

So, if I were to advice any movie maker, I'd say "avoid the open-ended endings" or watch your audience turn on your movie.

As for this one, I liked it. I liked the performances and enjoyed that, until the ending, the movie was open-ended enough to let anyone draw their own conclusions (possession or illness, abuse or neglect).

That said, I think I'm ready for all these demonic possession/exorcism movies to either take the next step and move beyond what "the movie the Catholics have" brought to the table or to hit the shelf and disappear for a while.

Posted by: Fredo at August 31, 2010 2:14 AM

I can't adequately express my problems with the movie without giving stuff away! That's frustrating.

Look, I thought it was good. UNTIL the pentagrams and shit written in blood all over the house. Not that that was itself objectionable, but that was the exact moment I felt the film went right off the rails and into lazy-land. I mean, I was intrigued until then. DID he regain his faith? I don't need pat endings. But it's like they completely abandoned the storyline altogether in favor of __(what happened instead)____.

I find it amusing that the movie is being turned into some sort of "stupid people don't get it" thing when I saw the ending as a pat little cop-out in and of itself. All the themes of parent-child relationships and isolation and faith breaking down and being used for practical ends and maybe being renewed were CANCELED by the last 30 minutes. Just canceled.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at August 31, 2010 8:34 AM

I forgot another sticking point I had with this film: I like my horror subtle. It messes with my head more.

And the first 3/4 of the film was subtle enough that I thought "hey, I actually like this."

And the last 1/4 was anti-subtle. It seemed to pander to the crowd that demands that sort of thing in a horror film. That's why it felt like it had two different tones to me.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at August 31, 2010 8:36 AM

fuck Eli Roth.

Really?! It seemed to me he was trying to help promote a lesser-known director, the same way Tarantino or Peter Jackson or whoever else do these days, by putting his name on it. I'm by no means a fan of Roth's films, but based on the promotion he did for The Last Exorcism, he made it pretty clear it would be nothing like the films he's directed. Your review pretty much confirmed for me what he had said about it. It might have been misleading for people who can't get past his name, but I imagine there were some people who either didn't care or actually knew his level of involvement going into it.

Posted by: Uda at August 31, 2010 9:45 AM

I had written this one off but now I'll definitely give it a shot when it comes home. I was equally skeptical of The Exorcism of Emily Rose but I really liked that one. The Rashomon like structure of that movie worked well and it was both thought provoking and creepy. Laura Linney gave a hell of a good performance.

Posted by: TylerDFC at August 31, 2010 9:49 AM

why do demons always posess pre/pubescent girls? Is that like a supernatural law or something

Posted by: idleprimate at August 30, 2010 6:03 PM
---
I take it you never raised a daughter/daughters. They seem half possessed most of the time anyway (see, for instance: "Twilight" phenomenon).

Posted by: , at August 31, 2010 10:12 AM

why do demons always posess pre/pubescent girls? Is that like a supernatural law or something

The folklorist in me would suggest that this is tied to old fears regarding puberty and how it affected girls. For many centuries, women were considered evil and impure (since Eve listened to the beast and corrupted Adam!)

/SPOILER ALERT!
Snuggiepants regarding the ending: is it possible that what is shown is more of an old time/medieval version of exorcism? We see the other preacher clothed in red and shouting the name of the demon that Cotton seemed to pull out of his ass. Could it be that the father convinced him to do to his daughter what Cotton wouldn't? It doesn't answer why they killed the camera crew but still.

Posted by: Fredo at August 31, 2010 1:51 PM

This may contain spoilers:

I have to agree with most of people who have seen the film and commented. The first 90% of the movie was great - not at all what I expected. Character-driven and subtle. The ending took all that away.

It's not for reasosn discussed by the reviewer or others - i.e. I needed more concrete answers or wanted the science vs. religion debate settled. It was because the answers given were too concrete, and the science vs. religion debate was settled, in the most obvious and predictable ways. The movie starts with Cotton telling us how he basically has no faith and is performing fake exorcisms. From about 10 million miles away, I can see that he's going to end up being forced to believe in things he previously hadn't in one way or another (which is actually pretty much the opposite of faith, isn't it?).

I don't see how anyone could think of the ending as original at all. Have we all seen Rosemary's Baby? How about The Blair Witch Project?

All I saw was a good, original movie which got suddenly interrupted by an ending that was a mish-mash of every shaky-camera-type movie that I've seen over the last 15 years or so.

Overall, I enjoyed it until the last 5 minutes or so.

Posted by: John B at August 31, 2010 2:33 PM

The only problem I had with the ending was that it was too similar to Blair Witch. I was fine with it not tying the movie up in a nice bow like most horror movies do. Another glaring similarity to Blair Witch was a stop in town to discuss the haunted history of the area with a bunch of red necks. That was near the beginning of the movie and left me with a bad taste in my mouth throughout. From then on I kept looking at it as a Blair Witch remake.

Overall I didn't feel the movie was that suspenseful or scary. Paranormal Activity was much more creepy in my opinion.

Posted by: Todd A at August 31, 2010 8:04 PM

Exactly! That's why those pentagrams in blood all over the inside of the house made me start going "UH-oh!" Then I remembered the interviews of town members at the beginning and whoops, here we go....shit just went off the rails AND FIN.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at August 31, 2010 8:54 PM

I saw this at a screening last night in London. It was good, thought-provoking, just not scary enough in the traditional sense. But for some reason, this is why I like the film - it made me laugh and wasn't about the thrills but more about Cotton's journey.

The director specifically stated that it was character study of Cotton, a story about how faith and science butt heads and ultimately are never resolved. Hence, why he left the ending ambiguous. It's a cautionary tale of Cotton for not changing his POV until it's essentially too late.

As for Eli Roth, he produced in the sense of finding money, getting talent on board, making sure the idea of the project stayed true over the three years of the making the film. In that role, I think he did well. He basically said he wanted the film to freak you the fuck out and stimulate discussion afterwards. He succeeded in this task as seen in this comment section.

Is the film perfect? No. Will I buy it on dvd? Probably, but only because I have still developing crush on Patrick Fabien and not because of a wow factor of the story.

Basically, it was a decent ninety minutes of your time in the theater.

Posted by: Teresa at September 1, 2010 10:34 AM

Great review. I completely agree. I am a seasoned horror veteran, and while your knee was shaking, I bit my knuckles. Hard.

I really don't understand why everyone hated this film (audiences, not critics.) It was so refreshing to see some real character development for a change.

The fact that Cotton had lost his faith a bit added to the complexity of the character.

Posted by: frothygirl at September 1, 2010 4:40 PM

Where's Robert to weigh in on this? (New Jersey Robert, not Canadian sparkly-tits Robert. Although he could weigh in on this too.)

Probably waiting until after he's seen it, because he really doesn't want to be spoiled. Anyway, I didn't read this before seeing it, because I didn't want to be spoiled, and I didn't want to hear it was bad, because I was going to see it anyway. I figured y'all would totally hate it.

So, Bedhead, what a right-on review! Was it a perfect movie? No. Was it more interesting than (I imagine) anyone thought it would be? Hells yes. Is it still making me think about it and form my own interpretation of what happened? You bet.

Also, the main actor totally fucking sells it. As does the girl. That's actually really important in a good horror film.

Posted by: MM at September 2, 2010 1:48 AM

I'm going to de-lurk here--not to say something witty or original, because that is why I lurk in the first place--but to second what Snuggiepants and Robert B already said so eloquently. I really did think the greater part of the movie was enjoyable and thought-provoking and at points genuinely terrifying and then...that happened. I don't think I disliked the ending because it was "too open ended" but for the exact opposite reason--it answered too many questions in ways that seemed lazy or over-done. And not to quibble too much with such a small aspect of the movie, but if this is a mostly completed "documentary", how did this footage "get to be released" when the ending happened the way it did? Wouldn't the [don't want to spoiler here, so trying not to be too specific] footage have been 'lost' in those last Blair Witchy moments?

And now to re-lurk and sing "Witchy Woman" as it will be stuck in my head all day.

Posted by: couch and pants at September 2, 2010 9:46 AM

And to respond to Fredo's spoilery question: I can't remember exactly because I saw it almost a week ago, but I'm pretty sure that some of the things being said during that last ceremony that you are talking about would cancel out your theory--***SPOILER***the guy in red was not exorcising, he was invoking a demon, at least from what he said, and that is where I think that the problem comes from. Also ***SPOILER*** why would the dad have to be tied up if it was the kind of exorcism that he was asking for?

Posted by: couch and pants at September 2, 2010 9:52 AM

There was two flaws that should have either been explained or changed.

1) Of course, the ending. It felt rushed. As if the filmmakers realised they were running out of film time and hurriedly wrapped it all up in an insanely ill-thought conclusion. After the film's unpredictability when it comes to exorcism movies, it pandered to the cliche and was out of sync with the build-up.

2) What was the film? Was it just found footage? Was it a half-finished documentary? If so, who started post-production? It couldn't make up it's mind. It started a really well put together/shot mockumentary, then descended into 'The Blair Witch Project' territory. They needed to make up their minds there.

Other than that, I agree with the review. It was well shot, not too shaky for a hand-held camera movie. (I normally can't watch those; they make my eyes hurt.) The actors seemed natural, and it was a great show from Ashley Bell.

However, I can think of at least two alternate endings that would have made this film end with less cliche than it did.

Also, don't watch it if you see a lot of teenage chav/emo-wannabes going in with you. They talked amongst themselves, laughed inappropriately and completely missed the point, declaring that they could have joined in the middle of the movie and it would have been better. Some of them even walked out a mere twenty minutes in. I think I would have enjoyed the movie more if I was allowed to eat them before it started.

Go in expecting a well put together documentary on the power of exorcisms in the Deep South with a bad ending, and you won't be disappointed.

Posted by: elijay at September 6, 2010 5:59 AM

I am shocked to learn that this actually sounds good. Eli Roth is deplorable but if he's just the producer than well, it doesn't sound half bad.

Posted by: ph at September 6, 2010 4:32 PM

not a particularly good movie.

not bad, but not good. far too many plot holes and gaps in logic to make me care about things in general. too bad really, it had potential

Posted by: mike at September 8, 2010 5:57 PM

This movie pissed me off. Not because it's bad - it's a smart film, & several hours after I saw it, details from the first half hour were still popping into my head, making me go "Oh, that makes so much SENSE!" which is usually a good sign.

But I - like most Pajibans - love film, & love horror movies, & have seen a lot of them, from the 70s onwards. But this isn't being marketed as a film-lovers movie, it's being marketed as a good modern horror movie & plays as such for 99% of the film, then in the final moments suddenly does a complete U-Turn. The ending is deliberately difficult for people who aren't demon-movie buffs to understand, & takes snobbish pleasure in this fact.

To me, this film was the equivalent of the marketing dept advertsising Inception as a superhero movie with Leo DiCaprio & a nice romance between Ellen Page & Jospeh Gordon-Levitt, then rolling their eyes at bemused teenagers who went hoping for a good second-date movie, saying "Oh, you're too young & stupid to understand."

You have to respect your audience. The film is a smart horror, but that's not saying much, & it's not smart enough to justify being so dickish to the people who pay to see it.

Posted by: onewing at September 8, 2010 8:10 PM

I agree with everyone (Snuggie, Robert B, etc.) who exposed this movie for what it was and didn't descend into "Pish posh, you just don't understaaaaaand."

It was a good movie. When I saw the stupid pastor in a red robe, I was like, oh jesus fuck no.

Posted by: duckandcover at September 11, 2010 12:34 AM

i saw the last exorcism,it was good it had the feeling like paranormal activity ill prolly see devil when it comes out to dvd,i just dont think its worth the money but i think devil would be alright

Posted by: Tonette Dorsaint at September 30, 2010 6:43 AM

I'm obviously coming in way, way late to this party, but I really feel the need to speak up. I hope somebody manages to read this.


Um. What I'm seeing in the comments is a major MISunderstanding of the last five minutes of the movie. There is nobody in a red robe performing an exorcism. The town is composed of Demon-worshippers, for crying out loud. The scene around the fire isn't an exorcism, it's a Satanic ritual where they're calling forth the demon-father of the baby. The town members aren't fundamentalists (the father is, he's clearly not in on it) they're CULTISTS.

As for the 'found footage' part, well, it didn't bother me. They never claimed it was discovered somewhere like in Blair Witch. So the whole documentary perspective isn't something that needs justification: it;s just the perspective through which you see the movie unfold.

Posted by: Karstark at December 30, 2010 7:05 PM

















mindholeblowers.gif viral_hits.gif
>> Pajiba Movie Posters

>> Pop Culture's 20 Greatest Dancing GIFs

>> The 100 Greatest Insults of All Time

>> The "Other" 100 Greatest Movie Quotes

>> The 100 Greatest Movie Threats of All Time

>> The Sean Bean Death Reel

>> Chicks Dig Beards: It's Science

>> The Coolest TV Show Title Sequences

>> The Most Rewatchable Movies

>> The Most Expensive Movies of All Time