The Last Exorcism Part II Reviews
YodaMasterJedi
Super Reviewer
June 7, 2013
three stars
www.themoviewaffler.com
Super Reviewer
June 8, 2013
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.
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 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.
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.
Jeff B.
Super Reviewer
March 19, 2013
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.
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
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.
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.
June 7, 2013
They could have really done something cool with this flick but ruined it. Ashley Bell did a wonderful job and almost makes you wonder if she is just mentally ill or if it is really happening, but unfortunately the writers butchered things by misusing symbols from Vodun, yet calling on it to help and also the really ridonkulous ending that should have never been. Some directors really need to learn to know when to hold them and know when the fold them. The last 5 minutes in particular were completely unnecessary and make me dock it a half star.
March 6, 2013
Eschewing the found-footage style of the first film, The Last Exorcism II still managed to thoroughly entertain me. As with the first film, your love of the movie may depend on your reaction to the final scene, which, of course, I will not give away here. I absolutely loved it and so the rest of the film worked for me despite some cheesy New Orleans voodoo moments in which the guardians of the light are battling the forces of darkness, but I thought the film made up for it in the end. Fundamentally sad in many ways and creepy, The Last Exorcism Part II may not delight everyone, but I think a certain handful of horror fans will thoroughly enjoy it despite its faults.
March 11, 2013
"The Last Exorcism: Part II" gives the devil plenty of space and time to show off his handiwork, but apart from making young women contort their bodies--that's about all he does. The film is short on genuine scares and any ingenuity. So many sequences are structured, that the pattern becomes predictable and tiresome. Especially since the first film at least set a standard for originality--this sequel--which reshapes it's creative team, delivers nothing .
hisdivineshadowz
March 5, 2013
Like blair witch and it's sequel. The first is found footage POV the second, filmed likea real movie WTF. I like the whole Carrie has become the Anti-christ at the end they shouldve added more mayhem to the whole "Oh Crap she's the apocalypse-made flesh" ending.
February 28, 2013
I can't give this movie no stars, becuase the first 5 minutes were pretty good. After that, it was probably one of the worst movies I've ever seen. And now that I think back to the film, the first 5 minutes were the recap scenes of the FIRST film, which I actually enjoyed. It seems like the new filmakers of this pushed sequal took everything that was good from the first film, and threw it out the window! Just extremely disapointing.
January 17, 2013
Very well directed and acted. Not as promising as the trailer made it look and it had an abrupt ending like the first one.
March 1, 2013
I liked the first one, documentary style. I had high hopes for this one to explain the ending of the first. They could of done so much with this! Making it solid! The first movie at least felt authentic and intriguing. Overall Part 2 was boring, not scary one bit, There was no build up, a few fake-out scares and a poorly scripted plot. The trailer is as good as it gets! As much as I love Ashley Bell and think she is an incredible actress, the movie was awful, predictable and the finale was 10 minutes on a table with nothing happening. No bending in obscene angels like advertised on the poster never happens. I'm really disappointed with Eli Roth, normally I love his movies! (Hostel, Hostel 2, Cabin Fever) and looking forward to his new movie coming out called "Aftershock". I can say if it wasn't for Ashley Bell's acting the movie would be a total write off, but not even she can save a terrible movie! I have to finish by saying Nell is no Carrie....LOL Leave the random fires to her when she's on a rampage! LOL If they do make a Part 3 I can guarantee you in will go straight to DVD, I don't think this movie is going to do well at the box office :-(
June 19, 2013
The first part left you wondering if they ran out film and just stopped. This one was better thank goodness. Not fabulous, but it was okay.
June 17, 2013
The Last Exorcism Part 2 parts from the interesting aspect of a documentary/found-footage style of filming and we follow Nell and her life after the events of the first film concluded. The first film left many questions unanswered and you would have thought that the film would go out of its way to answer all of those questions, but instead, not only does it not answer these questions, but it leaves you with so many more.
The film falls so easily into the typical horror movie style of having clichéd jump scares that are so telegraphed and predictable, clearly demented characters who are all part of the demonic cult, dumb people who are oblivious to the weird and evil stuff that happens around them . . . the list continues.
The film obviously wants us to sympathize with Nell (by the way, the actress deserves a lot better than this movie) and whilst it kind of succeeds in that aspect, you lose any sort of investment in her character due to the lazy script that has forced this laughable script, telegraphed plot lines that you see a mile coming, an ending that will leave you face palming with how rock stupid this movie is and coupled with shocking bad special effects - worse than the ones in Mama - everything about this movie reeks of amateurish movie making.
If you were going to make a sequel, pick it back up from the end of the first movie and find out what happened to the reverend - all I could keep thinking throughout this movie was 'What happened to the reverend? I want to know what happened to him - because all I kept thinking was that this film did not need to be made.
It should have been left at the end of the first movie and leave us to fill in the pieces for ourselves and let us come up with our own conclusion. That would have been way better that this excuse of a movie.
There are few occasions where sequels to successful and good movies work and there are some that don't. The Last Exorcism Part 2 is neither . . . this film goes completely off the spectrum and lands in a separate category on its own, that category is called 'absolutely atrocious'.
The Last Exorcism Part 2 parts from the interesting aspect of a documentary/found-footage style of filming and we follow Nell and her life after the events of the first film concluded. The first film left many questions unanswered and you would have thought that the film would go out of its way to answer all of those questions, but instead, not only does it not answer these questions, but it leaves you with so many more.
The film falls so easily into the typical horror movie style of having clichéd jump scares that are so telegraphed and predictable, clearly demented characters who are all part of the demonic cult, dumb people who are oblivious to the weird and evil stuff that happens around them . . . the list continues.
The film obviously wants us to sympathize with Nell (by the way, the actress deserves a lot better than this movie) and whilst it kind of succeeds in that aspect, you lose any sort of investment in her character due to the lazy script that has forced this laughable script, telegraphed plot lines that you see a mile coming, an ending that will leave you face palming with how rock stupid this movie is and coupled with shocking bad special effects - worse than the ones in Mama - everything about this movie reeks of amateurish movie making.
If you were going to make a sequel, pick it back up from the end of the first movie and find out what happened to the reverend - all I could keep thinking throughout this movie was 'What happened to the reverend? I want to know what happened to him - because all I kept thinking was that this film did not need to be made.
It should have been left at the end of the first movie and leave us to fill in the pieces for ourselves and let us come up with our own conclusion. That would have been way better that this excuse of a movie.
June 17, 2013
Well it was MUCH better than the first! Took way too long to see something. Much better performance from Bell in this one too.
