Opening

62% The Maze Runner Sep 19
66% A Walk Among the Tombstones Sep 19
44% This Is Where I Leave You Sep 19
82% Tracks Sep 19
93% The Guest Sep 17

Top Box Office

11% No Good Deed $24.3M
70% Dolphin Tale 2 $15.9M
92% Guardians of the Galaxy $8.1M
19% Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles $4.9M
20% Let's Be Cops $4.4M
88% The Drop $4.1M
37% If I Stay $3.9M
36% The November Man $2.8M
35% The Giver $2.6M
67% The Hundred-Foot Journey $2.4M

Coming Soon

68% The Equalizer Sep 26
71% The Boxtrolls Sep 26
86% The Two Faces of January Sep 26
—— Two Night Stand Sep 26
91% Jimi: All Is by My Side Sep 26

New Episodes Tonight

82% Girl Meets World: Season 1
87% The Knick: Season 1
50% Z Nation: Season 1

Discuss Last Night's Shows

100% Garfunkel and Oates: Season 1
—— Haven: Season 5
89% The Honorable Woman: Season 1
56% Married: Season 1
39% Rush: Season 1
82% Satisfaction: Season 1
79% You're the Worst: Season 1

Certified Fresh TV

87% Boardwalk Empire: Season 5
86% The Bridge (FX): Season 2
91% Doctor Who: Season 8
83% Extant: Season 1
89% The Honorable Woman: Season 1
87% The Knick: Season 1
89% Manhattan: Season 1
97% Masters of Sex: Season 2
90% Outlander: Season 1
82% Satisfaction: Season 1
87% The Strain: Season 1
79% You're the Worst: Season 1

The Last Exorcism Part II Reviews

Page 1 of 42
Carlos M

Super Reviewer

June 11, 2013
Despite the deliberate pacing that helps build tension, here is another sequel (to a good horror movie) that drops the subjective camera for no reason along with its main reason to exist - and it is hard not to be infuriated by its stupid, inconclusive ending.
Everett J

Super Reviewer

July 11, 2013
*
This sequel is a complete waste of time. It picks up with Nell at a safe house in New Orleans, and the demon comes back for her. It isn't in POV like the first movie, and honestly doesn't have any real scary/creepy moments too it. Hell, they don't really address much of anything from the events of the first movie. It as is someone said "make a sequel!" so they rushed it and didn't put any creativity into it. The said "we'll just have Nell movie and forget everyone else." By the end, it isn't shocking or anything, your just ready for it to be over. Kind of boring, and after re-watching the first one, I thought they could have done so much more with it than what they did. They did leave it open for a third, but really, who would want to see it after this? Skip it, and just stick to the first one.
TheDudeLebowski65
TheDudeLebowski65

Super Reviewer

July 2, 2013
Sequel to The Last Exorcism is a predictable affair that could have been much better than what it turned out to be. I really wanted to enjoy this, but I felt that the film relied on recycled ideas to create its terror. The horror itself is never really terrifying, only a bit unnerving and the filmmakers really could have done something truly special here. Unfortunately the movie suffers from a dull script and performance that just aren't interesting. This sequel just fails at delivering genuine chills and you end up wanting more out of the film. As it is, this is yet another clichéd horror film that doesn't cover new ground. With that being said, if they were going to make a sequel to the Last Exorcism, they should have put more effort into it because the original was truly an interesting horror film. The Last Exorcism 2 is just a bland horror movie that doesn't shock the way it's supposed to. The film is predictable and we know when everything will happen. This is a poor attempt at cashing in on the original, and they really should have made something better. The Last Exorcism 2 is just another bad horror movie that has been released this year and one that isn't worth your time. Stick with the original, it is a far superior film than this film, and this follow-up relies on old ideas that we've seen many times before. As a genre film, it simply doesn't deliver anything worthwhile for fans of Exorcism films, and it is a failed attempt at crafting a movie that should have been much better than what it turned out to be.
YodaMasterJedi
YodaMasterJedi

Super Reviewer

June 7, 2013
three stars
Gimly M

Super Reviewer

November 25, 2013
Putting aside how absurd a sequel to something called "The Last" anything sounds, here is my review of The Last Exorcism Part II:

The film is not entirely without merits. There's a couple of seriously great visuals. The opening sequence is quite a strong scene and setup (despite this though, it is promptly dropped all together). Ashley Bell in the leas role has proved herself a more than capable character actor, and the effects quality (while not great) has taken a step up since the previous instalment.

Aaaaand that's about every nice thing I can bring myself to say. Even before the mentions of salt lines and Croatoan I felt that it played out almost like an episode of Supernatural that's overly long and has intensely boring characters. Beyond links like this it still feels like an episode of a TV show. One that the events of which were initially meant to be crammed into the final five minutes of the penultimate episode for the season, but the show-runners realised that they were going to be an episode short for what they were commissioned to produce so the then had to stretch it out with fuller bullshit to make it into a full episode. Except that it's even worse, 'cause this isn't a twenty, thirty, forty or even fifty minute episode of something, it's a full hour and a half of crap, the previous "episode" of which we left behind three years ago.

It was offensive to devotees of the original (if any besides me exist, if not then at least to me). And it brought nothing off even remote interest to any potential newcomers. I can understand dropping the found footage format of the first film, that way lies Paranormal Activity, and avoiding any similarities with that stream of garbage is always a good plan. But beyond that, all change is bad change, and almost all events of the predecessor are unceremoniously cast aside.

I kept looking at the time while watching this and thinking to myself, "Wow it's a quarter of the way through and it's still just tension building", then "a third of the way through and it's still just tension building?" then half, then two thirds, then so and so forth until I got to the stage where there was nine minutes left and I realised that it wasn't "tension" at all, it was just lazy disjointed events that Botko and Gurland seem to think constitutes an actual film. I am a huge fan of suspense. Huge. But this was not suspense I felt, it was boredom. The payoff for which was a couple of seconds of poorly shot but semi-cool lead up to a potential third film the series doesn't deserve.

So Part II? It was, truly awful. But it still in no way effects my opinion of the film this is a sequel to. The Last Exorcism, was, and remains a solid and original piece of cinema.

22%

-Gimly
themoviewaffler.com
themoviewaffler.com

Super Reviewer

June 8, 2013
Nell (Bell), the possessed girl seen in the first film, is admitted to a New Orleans home for troubled girls. Her life begins to get on track as she makes friends and takes a job as a chambermaid at a local motel. When she visits a parade in the city with her friends, however, Nell begins to have strange experiences, seemingly followed by a group of masked men and street mimes. Telephones begin to ring when they're not plugged in and voices attempt to speak to Nell through radio sets. It seems Nell may not have escaped her traumatic past.
Last year, for the third installment of the 'Rec' series, the film-makers cast aside the found-footage aesthetic about a half hour into the film. For the sequel to 2010's 'The Last Exorcism', found-footage is discarded completely. It could be taken as a sign that the sub-genre is finally dead, although this Halloween we'll be treated to yet another shaky-cam episode of the 'Paranormal Activity' series. The 2010 film was strangely under-rated, possibly because it had the hated name of Eli Roth attached as producer. With that film, I recall thinking the found-footage format was no more than an unnecessary gimmick as it had a strong enough story to stand on its own. This sequel, however, could badly use a gimmick.

Much of the film revolves around a litany of tired horror cliches, all of which we've seen employed in far more effective ways in much more successful films. Even the New Orleans setting has become a default fallback for American horror films, thanks to the city's historic relationship with the practice of voodoo. Bell admittedly does her best with a Sissy Spacek type "sympathetic yet creepy" performance. Garner, one of America's best young actresses, is wasted in a support role, though it does add to her growing back catalog of movies regarding cults, having appeared in last year's 'Martha Marcy May Marlene' and 'Electrick Children'.
The main problem is that the threat to Nell is never really made concrete. A horror film's success often relies on its villain. 'The Last Exorcism Part II' ultimately collapses due to its lack of a clearly identified one.
Dann M

Super Reviewer

March 7, 2013
Making every mistake possible, The Last Exorcism Part II has none of the wit or terror of the original. Reverting to a formulaic and stereotypical horror film, the story follows Nell Sweetzer as she recovers in a halfway house following her ordeal with a cult, but the evil continues to stalk her. The switch from a documentary to a narrative doesn't work, and Nell isn't a strong enough character to carry the film. The Last Exorcism Part II is a massive train wreck that has no concept of what made the original so compelling.
Bradley W

Super Reviewer

January 19, 2013
The Last Exorcism: Part II is that classic timeless example that Hollywood horror sequels never work and are just a waste of time and money. When I went to see the original film I enjoyed its found footage method and the way it handled its tension and characters, and although it wasn't great I still thought it was an effective horror film. But this film loses almost complete track of what made the first film interesting and clever, and this ends up being nothing but crap. The beginning of every year is filled with a bunch of crappy horror films that nobody wants to see, and that is precisely why they put it at the start of the year. There is a small piece of footage from the original film in this movie, and I promise you that is going to be the scariest part of this film. I mean I can't remember seeing a horror film that was actually as non-scary as this one. I was never frightened, or shaking, or even closing my eyes, I just sat there and looked at the time to see when I could leave. It's hard to fully explain how unoriginal and predictable a film like this is, and if you watch the end of the film you know they are preparing another sequel and this scares me. I don't want to pay more of my money to see another bad and uninteresting sequel with no reason to exist, because this film has already accomplished that. Ashley Bell is probably one of the most awkward and uninteresting actresses of her generation, and I sincerely hope she doesn't continue her career in the horror genre. If you are looking to spend money on a scary time, I suggest you turn around and run away as fast as you can.

The story follows Nell (Ashley Bell) as she is returned to a normal life after the events of the first movie, away from her brother and father. But she is brought back into her old life when supernatural things start occurring around her and her friends.

The plot is so pointless, predictable, boring, deficient, nonsensical, laughable, and overall just plain bad that I hate having to write a review for it. I didn't care about any of the characters, and most of them spend time just being clichés that I could've cared less what happened to them. This is a concept that hundreds of horror films have done before, but the producers must believe because it's a sequel to a moderate box-office success that somehow it will make for good filmmaking, but they were wrong. But I think what made me mostly angry about this ludicrous story is the same problems most horror movies have, and that is the fact that it's just not scary. When I pay my money to be scared, I expect the movie to actually be slightly scary, but sadly this film depends all on cheap and pathetic jump scares that wouldn't scare a 2-year old. Some people believe that I give horror films a hard time because I am not a fan of horror films, but on the contrary I love horror films but only if I feel that I have been scared. I enjoy old school horror films such as "The Shining" or "The Exorcist," and sadly I haven't seen a horror film in years that could even come close to classics like those films. This film feels like it wants to become some big franchise like "Saw" or "Paranormal Activity" but if you ask me it couldn't survive becoming a series. Characters that are boring and one-dimensional, a story that completely depends on the original film, and a concept that has been used many times before by many better films. I hated the script, and I think the money grubbing filmmakers could've cared less.

The cast mainly consists of Bell's boring and talentless performance, and it disappoints me because she actually gave the original film a spark of hope. Ashley Bell gave a mysterious, dangerous, and even creepy performance in this films predecessor, but that was mainly because she was a supporting character. Now the writers decided it would be smart to make her the star of the film and carry the weight of the entire cast, which might've been the dumbest move I have seen in a long time. She just seems sick the entire film, and I realize this is the point of her character, but it just doesn't work with my taste. She just sees a lot of danger but she rarely is actually under any danger, and I think we see her yell and scream more than just talking. She hasn't become a popular actress or even well known, and so I don't know why they believed it would be smart to make her star in this film. There is a small number of supporting actors in the film that I will not even bother mentioning, because my guess is that this is the highest any of their careers are going to get. Overall Bell's awkward and senseless performance can't carry any of the weight of the films witless story.

The Last Exorcism: Part II bored me to death and destroyed any chance of this becoming a franchise. Director Ed Gass-Donnelly had high hopes when I saw his film "Small Town Murder Songs" which was a well-directed and written film, but now I believe he has shattered the progress he made with that previous film and has given us a sloppy and laughable horror flick. He gives this horror film no soul or edge to make us actually care about what is going on, and it feels like they made this as quickly as possible so he could just take his money and go home. This film reminds of when I was told they were making a sequel to "The Human Centipede," a film that some people enjoyed and some people just couldn't swallow. Some people were very disappointed also with "The Last Exorcism" so why on earth would they decide to make sequels for these two films? Sometimes I wonder what could be going on in a filmmakers head, and I just miss the days when horror films actually used to be fun and scary. This film tries nothing new and has nothing to show us other than a few flashy jump scares that, as I said before, couldn't scare a baby. I think most people will have a good sense and realize what a piece of trash this is, and I hope most people will have some common sense and just stay home and save their money for a better film.
PantaOz
PantaOz

Super Reviewer

August 1, 2013
This supernatural horror is the sequel of The Last Exorcism which makes it after last... which makes the previous one not last, but this one is last... or there will be another one which will make those both titles obsolete, and the third one will be last... sorry - I could not resist! This film is co-written and directed by Ed Gass-Donnelly, and Ashley Bell is in her old role in this continuation of the events from the 2010 movie with the same name (without part II). Compared to its predecessor, it is not presented in a found footage format, and it is not as appealing to the audience, except the repeated excellent performance of Ashley Bell. The story doesn't help you get involved and most of the time raises more questions than it answers. Somehow, the ending was left open, and until then most of the movie was filled with horror clichés with no motivation to go for real imaginative scares.

Some parts were on the edge, but most of the time everything was familiar and there are no surprises - this part was not at all as ambitious as its predecetor. Effects were not bad, but, again, I wished for something exciting... and there was nothing at the end. Just an average horror which is far from what should be associated with the name Exorcism, regarding the quality!
Jeff B.
Jeff B.

Super Reviewer

March 19, 2013
Though sometimes effectively creepy despite scaring away the found footage premise of its predecessor, the contradictorily titled The Last Exorcism Part II ultimately goes the way of the Blair Witch sequel. It's ludicrously ironic that buzzing flies often pester the actors in this steaming piece of digital. For every legitimate fright swept out of some dark new corners (thrills courtesy of a living statue street performer moving whenever the protagonist turns her head, an in-house massacre shot from an outdoor POV), there's a bevy of oldest spooks in the Book of Shadows (LOUD sound design, jump cuts) that makes this a devil of a dog.

In the PG-13-rated thriller sequel, newly exorcised Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell) tries to build a new life in a New Orleans home for troubled women, only the demon that once possessed her returns with a more horrific plan.

As possessed backwoods belle Sweetzer, Bell imbues the character with believable levels of both naïveté and ferociousness. Likewise, director Ed Gass-Donnelly works the horror over with some appropriately scary touches. Still, for all of their hard work, the material needs to have the archetypical demonic moments exorcised. Moviegoers have seen possession portrayed on screen numerous times before (The Devil Inside) and seen it done much much better besides (The Exorcist). Losing the faux-documentary style of Part I certainly distances this deuce as far as look and feel, but audiences didn't need to see The Last Exorcism -no classic piece of horror itself - to despise this latest in a long grime of pea soup.

Bottom line: Speaking in Bungs.
Jacob P

Super Reviewer

February 22, 2013
Not a very good sequel to the original, (which I really liked).
Director: "Hey! I have an idea for a sequel! Let's turn this super creepy found-footage movie...Into a Theatrical Over-Cliched Horror Movie!"
Although the idea was pretty cool...It just wasn't as effective as the first one.
The scares were cheap...The acting was bleh...and it overall bored me.
Could've benn alot better.
Christopher H

Super Reviewer

March 10, 2013
All credit must be given to Ashley Bell, the wonderful young actress who, yet again, takes on the role of Nell Sweetzer, reprising her role from the previous film "The Last Exorcism". In "Part II" of this hopefully two part saga, Nell returns from the events on the farm, a tormented and reclusive young girl. She's placed in a group home and attempts to return her life to some sort of normalcy. Obviously, we can assume this won't happen lightly, if at all. Along with Bell's impressive performance, including a vulnerability and naivety that could easily have been overdone by any other young actress, the scares help keep this film afloat, building tense moments with ease, starting from scene one in a stranger's bed. Made even more creepy by being placed on the streets of New Orleans, not only does "The Last Exorcism Part II" delve further than I possibly could have imaged, it actually does so in a somewhat refreshing and unique way. Had the ending been stronger and less of a throwaway, this could have been an above average film. Instead, it rises from its preconceptions and gains at least some sort of respectable stature.
January 30, 2013
Finally got around to this one off the T-Watch Pile during the Halloween season, and while the title is a bit unwieldy, I have to say that I dug it pretty damned well, and I enjoyed the ending that left it open for further expansion, in much the same manner that the Paranormal Activity franchise appears to be marketed.

Well worth a rental, see what happens next...
kaitlynj99
September 7, 2013
Better than the first one. Has some scary parts that can make you jump. The story jumps around alot though.
sherilyn131
August 20, 2013
Must see first one to understand. Unfortunately I started laughing in the begining of the movie. They left it with a there must be a third one, but I don't know how they are going to make it believable.
July 23, 2013
So ... The Last Exorcism wasn't really the LAST exorcism. As of this film, it was actually the second-to-last exorcism; but I guess that wouldn't make for a very good title. Part II is the actual last exorcism -- or so I am assuming -- because this sequel is so bad (like rancid, curdled milk bad) that I doubt this story is ever visited again. It is a shame the makers of this decided to toy with the story and verite style of the original -- which was quite profitable a few years ago because of its micro-budget -- as the original had a few genuine chills and bits of terror as it recounted an exorcism-gone-bad of a young girl named Nell (Ashley Bell) who was possessed by a demonic spirit in rural Louisiana performed by a bumbling preacher in-over-his-head. This story picks up immediately after the frightening final moments of the first -- it was rather Blair Witch-ish -- as Nell walks away unaware of who she is or what has just happened. The girl is taken to a home for troubled girls in New Orleans where she hopes to get her life back on track. A few of the fellow girls befriend her and she starts up a flirtation with a young boy (Spencer Treat Clark) whom she works with at a local motel. Only ... Nell doesn't get to live peacefully or happily ever after because the demon wants to retake complete possession of her body. The story becomes one jumbled mess of exorcism-horror-film clichés complete with dive-bombing blackbirds, bodily contortions and voodoo mumbo-jumbo. The acting here is atrocious and while Bell showed promise in the first film, her talents here are non-existent. She actually made me want the girl to become possessed ... like faster. If the film were going for comedy, I'd say this was mildly successful; but its intent is to be deadly serious and if flails. As if the movie couldn't get much worse, we get the ending ... ugh ... real demonic possession is probably less sufferable.
July 15, 2013
This movie sucks!. I normally try to give long, well-thought out reviews, but this really just isn't any more complicated than that. It just isn't worth your time. Watch Leprechaun in 'da Hood instead. Or maybe even Troll 2. Anything is better than this piece of garbage.
jaxy830
July 2, 2013
Very sad portrait of the original "Exorcist" special effects and make-up was the best thing about this movie...jaX
June 30, 2013
This movie was absolutely terrible. It had really nothing to do with exorcism's. It wasn't scarey... it was just really dumb... and a real lousily movie all together
Page 1 of 42
Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile