Nigel P Evangelical reverend and showman Cotton Marcus has a plan to expose the concept of 'exorcism' as the farce he believes it to be. This, as you might imagine, is asking for trouble. He reveals to camera his 'box of tricks' (steaming crucifixes, sound effects etc) that will prove how gullible people are. Patrick Fabian is excellent as the fast-talking Cotton. The reverend is initially arrogant, cocooned in the high-energy joy he brings to his congregation despite not entirely believing his own words, but gradually becomes aware that events are bigger than he can possibly handle.In 'Blair Witch' fashion, we are treated to interviews from the locals conducted by Cotton as he makes his way to where the exorcism is due to take place. Not all of them are friendly. One of the least amenable happens to be the son of the family for whom the exorcism is to be carried out. Indeed, one local's proclamation that the house in question contains 'the gates of hell' is alarmingly prosaic.When we meet the victim, Nell, allegedly under a demon's possession, she is virginal and shy. Actress Ashley Bell overplays Nell's wide-eyed innocence and wholesome smile … but then, we are meant to find her unnaturally good, in comparison to what comes later.I enjoy horror films, but I only find a handful of them truly frightening. One is 'The Exorcist' which, as you may imagine, this shares similarities with – and this is another. Familiarity does not make the images of a young girl getting progressively more violent, unearthly and demonic any easier to watch. The look of horror on the face of her father, her (also very unnerving) brother (a brilliant performance from Caleb Landry-Jones) and Cotton himself is communicated very well to the audience.Rather desperately, Cotton clings to the notion that – even despite bone crunching distortions (all performed without a stunt double) – the girl is not possessed by a demon but by shame. She is pregnant, and is terrified to reveal this to her God-fearing father.It is ultimately revealed (and this is a SPOILER) that not only is Nell actually possessed (by a demon called Abalam), but (in true Wicker Man style) the entire neighbourhood is in on it also. When her new-born baby is thrown upon an open fire which apparently gives true life to Abalam, as a viewer, I am actually relieved – because up until that point, 'The Last Exorcism' had me just where it wanted me, figuratively watching behind my fingers, such was the power of performance and production. But the ending entered into a world of the fantastic, a revelation too far, that ripped the carefully built-up realism from the piece. Not that the climax isn't effective – it's just unnecessary when it serves to break the spell of what we had seen up till that point. The glimpse of an entity in the burgeoning flames is the only example of CGI in the film.That bastion of decency, the UK Censor – who even since the 1930's, has been a thorn in the side of horror pictures – banned the promotional poster because of its 'offensive' imagery. As is often the case, such reassuring suppression only helped fuel its success enough for a sequel, also starring Ashley Bell, in 2013.

mathijsschaap Filmed in a way as if this is a documentary containing 'archive material' this movie was something you don't see everyday! That was a nice surprise and especially refreshing within the subject of supernatural movies about possession etc. Actors seem to move and act quite naturally and a fun fact is that most actors have the same First name as in real life. The effects are believable. The ending was quite the same as in 'Wake Wood' which was a bit of a letdown and the ending seems to have been rushed to completion, but I'm very fond of this movie nevertheless!I recommend this movie very much. Eli Roth was involved and it seems that Mr. Roth is becoming quite a name within the horror genre :-)

John Aldridge The Last Exorcism is well acted, and has a fairly good (but familiar) storyline. But everything else is just disappointing. From reviews, I was expecting an original new horror film. However, it takes about 45 minutes to get into the actual exorcism. The twist at the end doesn't make any sense at all, because the camera is all shaky and you really can't tell what is going on. There are also lots of random scary scenes, where the writer/director just thinks 'we will just put a scary scene there to make the movie interesting'. In fact, those scary scenes just make the movie pointless and boring. There are no particularly creepy shots, or atmosphere anywhere in the movie. Now, lets talk about the 'documentary' style to the film. It would have worked well, but the director decides to put eerie music in there. People who make documentaries do not just add some music in a documentary for effect. Also, some shots look like they are made to look like a normal movie, not a documentary. These aspects just make the style tacky, and not scary.I found Paranormal Activity quite boring, but that doesn't compare to this piece of crap.Overall: 1 out of 5 OR 2 out of 10 OR D-

mitchw-61-305942 I watched this movie by myself, at home, in the dark at 9:00pm on July 21st, 2014. It all seemed very familiar to me. I could have sworn I'd seen the film before because of the entire beginning, albeit very confused if I had. I didn't remember it being documentary-styled. I did remember the reverends motive for his documentary (which is depressing as hell for a horror flick, right? If that's the plot, where's the horror?). My story ends here - I had seen the beginning ... and never watched anything further or fell asleep.So I got to watch the story build-up (twice) and my first impression of something scary is about mid-way through the film at a hotel, and I was like "phew!" ... maybe this won't be nothing. I don't mind character build-up at all. I encourage it very much. The realism was FANTASTIC. I do not know of this actress who plays Nell. No sets. No Hollywood. I couldn't tell if they used computer graphics which was a solid plus. I read the actress playing Nell performed the contortions herself so maybe not, except for the end, unless they used kerosene (ha ha).I can't say much about my theories, because I don't want to give out spoilers, but I do have some about her brother and the ending. I believe it ended ambiguously. I read some comments on here and people have different perspectives about what was actually going on there, does that make it ambiguous or is it only ambiguous if that was the intention? Who cares? Heart racing sh!t for me. I believe in Satan! I believe in Satan! Does that make it more scary for me? I actually DoN't believe in Satan. Not in a demonic possession-way. I will say that it questions my doubt. Nicely played.I was frightened and entertained. I've got a HUGE collection of horror films and regularly rent them. I think that says something to the quality of this film, for me anyway. The ending was unexpected which is great. Whether it went "too far" supernaturally, well, yes and no. I'm glad it was unexpected. I will settle for 'no'.The actors did a great job. I don't know who the camera-man was played by, perhaps my only criticism ... no, I should say disbelief, is that he manages to hold the camera through everything he witnesses cause I would drop the F**K** and run the other way till my legs fell off.Oh, and I just watched the second one. Not sure if it's because I turned the light on or what but it's not comparable to the first one at all (IMO). See it, don't see. Whatever.Cheers!