'You know, I used to want to have a TV ministry. I thought that'd be cool. And now, frankly, all I really want is health insurance'This mockumentary low-budget horror film sustains interest for the first two-thirds. This style suited German-born director, Daniel Stamm, who had landed the project after creating a resounding hit around the festival circuit with another faux documentary. The feature's originality within the genre of 'found footage' horror lies in the fact that, for most of the film - and therein lies one flaw in the production's finale - the recording is not accidentally and improbably shot, as the pursued tries to escape, but done so with a clear purpose. This centres on Reverend Marcus Cotton's use of a documentary team to reveal to the wider world the unqualified duplicity of exorcisms, after his own faith has been shaken to the core. A rare venture into celluloid for this journeyman TV regular, Patrick Fabian was a worthy recipient of the Best Actor award at the Sitges Festival. His portrayal of the disillusioned and gregarious pastor, at odds with his upbringing as the miracle faith-healing son of an evangelist preacher, is captivating. Fabian has the charm and charisma to evince the showmanship of his character in carrying his flock where he wants to take them - accordingly the 'banana bread' scene resulted from the director's own evaluation of the actor's ability to weave in any text to his sermonising, after witnessing Fabian's audition. Having turned his back on God in favour of science when his own son's life was at risk, the news that an autistic boy has been murdered during an exorcism provokes Cotton into exposing the truth. As such his last exorcism, via a random choice of letter amongst those appealing for the pastor's help, brings Cotton and his camera crew to the Sweetzer farmstead in remote rural Louisiana. The cleverness of this part of the screenplay is in juxtaposing the entertaining disclosure of the tricks of the trade of this 'Elmer Gantry' with a conscience, with the sudden unnerving realisation for Cotton and his crew that something sinister is afoot in the Sweetzer household. The writers and director firstly benefited from the fact that a member of the crew was a practising exorcist, and then, the surprise discovery that their lead actress was double-jointed. The latter, Ashley Bell, aside from her skills as a contortionist, delivers a debut performance worthy of greater recognition. As the naive Nell, the teenage girl Cotton endeavours to free of her demonic possession, Bell arouses both fear for her character's vulnerability in such a fractured household, and of her potential psychotic or demonic savagery. The film also marks the career breakthrough for Caleb Landry Jones as Nell's unhinged protective brother. Further steadfast support is given by former 'Murder She Wrote' regular, Louis Herthum as the bereaved father whose religious fervour Cotton starts to suspect hides possible domestic abuse. The original title for this feature was accordingly 'Cotton', and it is a shame that the movie loses its way, rather than maintain focus on this individual's inner struggle to reignite his faith, when confronted by events and scenes which defy any rational explanation. The audience shares the tension of whether they are witnessing an actual possession or the shattered mind of a disturbed teenager, especially as the CGI is intelligently kept to a minimum. Moreover, in interview Eli Roth, aficionado of horror and this feature's producer, stated that the aim was to fashion a psychological thriller built up on believable character development. So less understandable then why the film's finale employs so many clichés of the genre in its escalation towards a lacklustre and farcical 'back woods' pastiche of 'Rosemary's Baby'

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.

It was good and it was not good on many different levels. I liked the way it started but I thought it got a bit funny in the middle and then the ending was a good twist but also in a way and a cop out. I liked the performance given by the girl who was suffering from problems but I also think the film didn't represent the concept of an Exorcist film because a) the preacher didn't believe in Exorcism, and b) the graphics on the ad poster etc make you think it is one of the prequels/sequels to the Exorcist series of films when it isn't. Add bits of ad hoc video spam aka Blair Witch as maybe a homage to a "classic" that actually has weirdness to it or is it not a homage but an attempt to rip off a genre creating film? I kinda don't care-its like arguing about what defines a good a picnic table. There have been lots of horror films come and go and it is understood that its all in good fun and as such I think a film has to pack more of a punch and not make the audience feel they are stupid if they actually think God means something. It should mean more than a dumb bumper sticker-as such the film kind of maligns the idea of 'a good Christian' and paints Christians people as back woods dumb dumbs or charlatans. The original Exorcist film depicts a priest who is kind of a turd who gets the devil on his doorstep-is it karma? Maybe it is. A similar theme is dealt with by this film yet it is 'not affiliated' with the Exorcist movie. A rip off of a concept using a similar title & graphic style for the ads is to walk a precarious pathway. The girl in the movie won and award and the film was financially successful. Hooray for them. Not sure if I see this film as a keeper. Maybe not so much. A bit thin in the final analysis aka my bros and sisters liked it but I thought it needed something more. Like originality.

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!