Featured Audience Ratings

• Dann M

  
  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… More
  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

  
  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… More
  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

  
  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… More
  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

  
  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… More
  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

  
  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… More
  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.

• Philip P

  
  I re-watched 2010's The Last Exorcism just the other day as I planned on seeing the sequel this week. I remembered liking it much more than I expected but not for the reasons one expects when going to see a horror flick. No, I was never truly scared by what I saw on screen with… More
  I re-watched 2010's The Last Exorcism just the other day as I planned on seeing the sequel this week. I remembered liking it much more than I expected but not for the reasons one expects when going to see a horror flick. No, I was never truly scared by what I saw on screen with the original film but more I was intrigued by the originality of it. Just when I thought I'd seen every kind of incarnation in which an exorcism could be presented on screen this found footage, documentary-like movie set a new standard for the exorcism film. The heart of that film, despite Ashley Bell's wonderfully innocent performance as sheltered yet possessed farm girl Nell Sweetzer, was Patrick Fabian as Reverand Cotton Marcus. Fabian created a charismatic character that was difficult to like, but at the same time able to create a sympathetic reasoning for his actions. He was a con man toying with peoples beliefs, but he was funny and to be fair he always had the best of intentions. The first film that needed no sequel, that called for no continuation of the story, or left anyone with a desire to see what happened to Nell (I think we all just assumed she died giving birth to a demon child!) was a brief hour and twenty-seven minutes long. The Last Exorcism Part II (which may be the most misleading title in the history of cinema) clocks in at only a minute longer, but feels like it goes on for days. It has an episodic feel to it that never picks up and never feels like a coherent work but instead a compilation of scenes that show our protagonist running from something, who we're never given a real reason as to why, and are expected to be frightened every time a loud sound interrupts the scene over and over again. read the whole review at www.reviewsfromabed.com

Read all 6 featured audience ratings