The Last Exorcism Part II

Cast of Characters:
Nell Sweetzer - Ashley Bell
Gwen - Julia Garner
Chris - Spencer Treat Clark
Louis Sweetzer - Louis Herthum

Director - Ed Gass-Donnelly
Screenplay - Damien Chazelle & Ed Gass-Donnelly
Rated PG-13 for horror violence, terror and brief language

      In 2010 the low budget film The Last Exorcism was released. Unlike most low budget horror films where they achieve nothing more than a cult status amongst its fan-base, The Last Exorcism received both critical and box office success. Naturally with any film’s success, the studio heads chomp at the bits at the possibility of cashing in on a sequel. Three years later, in 2013, The Last Exorcism is given its sequel with the ironically titled The Last Exorcism Part II.

      Following the events that took place in The Last Exorcism, Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell) has been placed in the care of a home for girls. The home’s caretaker, Frank, doesn’t buy into any of the past events that occurred in Nell’s life and assures her that she’s perfectly safe at the home. Normally, that means in about 30-45 minutes, she won't be. Over time, it seems that Nell is able to move on from her past. She quickly becomes friends with one of the other girls at the home, Gwen (Julia Garner). She also gets a job doing cleaning work at a motel and catches the eye of a local boy named Chris (Spencer Treat Clark).

      It seems now that all is right in Nell’s little world and she can finally have peace... No, of course not. The film’s titled The Last Exorcism Part II. You think people pay money to see Nell peacefully go about her life day by day? Things start to go south for Nell when she first sees a man that appears to be her father Louis (Louis Herthum) warning her about what is after her. Then she starts to have various demonic visions haunting her at night. Seems the demon Abalam felt the last exorcism wasn’t good enough. Frank insists to Nell that none of what she seems to be going through is real. The girls, on the other hand, aren’t so sure especially after seeing a youtube video of footage from the original possession. One girl even believes Nell may still have part of the demon inside her.

      Where to begin? Other than not being either scary, creepy, unnerving, suspenseful, or even good at all for that matter, this is what I refer to as a completely unnecessary sequel. The documentary handheld camera style of the first film is gone. What you have here is a mainstream, straightforward horror movie... minus the horror. There are no scares whatsoever. I’m not talking cheap jump scene thrills. You can have a great scary movie without cheap thrills. Honestly, though, I would've even taken cheap thrills 'cause there are absolutely no scares whatsoever of any kind. None. In a movie supposedly advertised as a horror film. Hell, I nearly fell asleep watching it. Did you get that? I nearly fell asleep watching what I thought was a horror film, but after sitting through it for 80-85 minutes, I realized either the demon Abalam is on Ritalin or it must not be a horror film. Normally, horror movies scare me into pissing my pants, or make me jump, or hell, at least lift my state of being past comatose. The characters are one dimensional as well as predictable and the big, climatic exorcism scene - involving of all things a chicken - falls flat. All of this which leads to an ending that had me rolling my eyes and thinking "Gimme a break". We may be seeing The Last Exorcism Part III: This Time We Mean It soon. I recently saw The Last Exorcism, the first film of the series, and I was thoroughly entertained by it. The “found footage” format wasn’t quite as effective as say The Blair Witch Project, but it was at least trying something new within the genre of exorcism films which outside of the original classic The Exorcist fail to impress me (The Exorcism of Emily Rose would be another unique exorcism film I highly recommend). The story involving a charismatic minister duping innocent people with staged exorcisms until finding himself facing an actual exorcism was intriguing. The performances were solid (particularly from Ashley Bell who comes off as bland here). More importantly, unlike this movie, there were genuinely scary moments in the film culminating in a satisfying ending. 

      Why bother making a sequel at all then? Hey, as great as The Blair Witch Project was, why make its sequel? Why make the fifteen million pointless sequels to the cleverly made Paranormal Activity? Well, like those other films, I believe the studio heads felt since the first film was such a big hit, they’d inflate the budget and throw more money at the sequel. Just ‘cause you throw more money at something, though, doesn’t mean it’ll stick. In my opinion, watch The Last Exorcism. It’s a solid B+ film and won’t disappoint. Its sequel though is one of the worst films of the year, and unless you're out of Valium, I say don't bother. The studio clearly thinks you shouldn't as well. What does it say when a studio is too ashamed to screen their film for the critics? Is it an act of defiance and they don't care what the film critics think? No, far from it. It says even they think this is an hour and a half long pile of crap. There are two grades I don’t dish out as much as others ‘cause they’re reserved for either the best of the best or the worst of the worst. One’s an A+... This film ain’t it. I give The Last Exorcism Part II an F (0 stars).

REVIEWS COMING LATER THIS WEEK...

Benjamin's Stash: Video Pick of the Week

Top 50 Movie Villains of All-Time: Part II

Oz the Great and Powerful