The Last Exorcism Part II Reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
As far as the film's ability to bring the scares I have to say that the film did it's job. There were moments that normally would not have been scary nor interesting in the film but because the director utilized the trick of closed in frame shots, in most of the scenes, random moments became thrilling. The story is more focused and open to the viewer with no real hidden plot, which allows for more imagery and dogma that surround the whole possession culture. It allows for a more mystical icon-ism to play a big part in staging the story. It is a true classic horror story in all ways. That normally would seem like a bad thing but thankfully this director knew how to shoot the film and set up the moments that needed to be scary or exaggerated enough to make the movie work. Until the ending of course. That I have issue with. I appreciated the twist that says not every one gets a Hallmark moment but for me it came off cheesy and that boiled down to the use of CGI when more organic FX would have came off better for what the director was going for. "The Last Exorcism Part II" is a better story and movie than the first film but the first film had a way better ending. There must be a third film in the works because there where some elements of the over all story that were only vaguely highlighted and need to be unveiled in this character's grander story.