the editing, camera angles and scary movie music pulled me out every time. If they wanted those aspects they should have filmed it like a regular movie. Those things show sings of filmmakers not all that confident in their product and adding spects in which don't belong in a "found footage" film.
No it doesn't. It just shows they wanted them in. I thought they were a nice touch, myself. Obviously, if they want you to think that a demon perhaps edited the documentary, they'd go with the music. It may also work for some people to set up their expectations that Cotton and crew make come out of this unscathed, since the documentary appears to be so complete and nicely edited at the beginning. A good many (maybe most) found footage films end with something awful happening to the main characters, so there's no reason for the film to be edited or whatever documentary they're going for to be completed.
she gave birth to a demon baby. but the exorcism was faked?
Is there a problem there? The demon baby existed independently of Cotton's non-belief.
and the actual "last exorcism" wasn't all that clear if it was just a demon baby she was giving birth too. it's a non ending, much like the recent DARK SKIES. Again, I guess for sheer shock value it will jolt, but it makes no sense.
Actually, it does make sense if you pay attention to the movie. Early on, they talk about a cult that feels they need to "feed souls to the devil."
They throw the demonic baby into the fire to unleash Abalam. How that worked isn't really clarified, but you get the basic idea of what they're doing.
It's made pretty clear it's a demonic baby.
1. The Abalam text mentions the defiling of an innocent.
2. The kid Nell named as the father obviously can't be.
3. Not only is there a close up shot of a creature-looking fetus making unhuman noises, Cotton flat-out states that "that isn't human!"
All that aside, there was a conclusion there. The movie was the story of Cotton's loss of faith. He lost it, and then he gets it back. Everything else is really sort of incidental. His character arc, and thus the focus of the plot, is concluded.
rotten tomatoes and metacritic and box office mojo and other sites of that ilk have to be taken in context. like, this movie had a HUGE openinging, which is why we're getting the *beep* and embarrasingly named "The last exorcism part 2" but it ALSO had a HORRIBLE drop off the next week, and a horrible cinamascore rating, which means bad word of mouth.
The context is that the critics liked the movie overall, but audiences generally didn't. I find it really went over their heads, particularly the ending. They went in expecting a run of the mill horror/exorcism movie, and got something slightly more quality. It's a movie about faith with horror elements, not a straight up scare flick, as well as one you have to actually pay attention to and think about. Sad to say, audiences aren't always good at that.
reply
share
ericfield1985
11 years ago
I'd say if the film dialed down on the horror elements and dialed up on the belief and faith being challenged stuff with Cotton, then I probably would have liked it more. And there is just no getting around the fancy editing/camera work/music for me. NONE. either it's a "found footage" movie or it's a regular movie, or hell, they could have even put up a title card at the beginning saying "This docu was made from footage found while covering Rev cotton.." etc not giving the ending away or it's nature while at the same time giving an explanation for the film making. If your interested in movies that deal with challenging faith with horror overtones, or straight up overt horror in them I'd reccomend the highly superior in every way:
The Exorcism of Emily Rose
AUDRY ROSE (it's a bit older)
Just typing those made me realize how similar their names are, haha, but the plots are almost the same (emily rose has MUCH more horror, where as AUDRY ROSE focuses on the court room aspects of it's plot)
reply
share
BigguBossu
11 years ago
And there is just no getting around the fancy editing/camera work/music for me. NONE. either it's a "found footage" movie or it's a regular movie, or hell
That's a shame. The only problem I had with the music is the "jump moments." I'm not a fan of jump scares in general, but certain well done ones I can enjoy. That just usually isn't the case when it's an instance of cranking up the sound just for a startle than trusting that what's on screen is genuinely scary.
I haven't seen Audry Rose, thanks for the suggestion.
I love Emily Rose. My top three possession flicks are The Exorcist, Emily Rose, and Last Exorcism. (I'm dreading this sequel, I'm just on this board to get user opinions.)
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
BigguBossu
11 years ago
I did earlier, actually. I pretty much agreed with everything you said.
I remember saying some of those same things almost verbatim to people outside the theater when they were complaining about the ending.
reply
share
alienjazzcat
11 years ago
Sequel is not as bad as everyone says it is.. I feel bad for that girl. Some people simply worry about thinking too much during films and being critical impressarios afterwards
reply
share
NotASpookyGhost
11 years ago
Please stop saying a demon edited the movie. That does not help in the defense of the movie in any way.
There's no problem with music being added afterwards by a human producer. Someone found it, edited it & released it. That's what found footage is. Or is it just supposed to be a coincidence that every time someone finds footage of an incident, it's only 90 minutes long?
reply
share