It would behoove me, I suppose, to first say a few words about Troll 2. You’d think it was a sequel about trolls, but it’s actually an independent film about goblins! There’s a family, loosely portrayed by what I will call actors, who move into the town of Nilbog[1], only to discover a conspiracy to kill outsiders, and maybe eat them? Also, there’s a Transylvanian witch for some reason. It is, by my estimation, the worst movie not created by Ed Wood.

Which is in fact the topic of the documentary I’m actually here to review. It’s hard to imagine anyone wanting to watch a documentary about a terrible movie without having first seen the movie, but then again, it’s hard to imagine liking that movie in the first place, and I am speaking as someone who does. But maybe that’s the point, is that it kind of explains how anyone could like such a thing, and maybe you want to know that. Or maybe you want to see the people involved, from the implausibly likable dentist to the (at the time of filming, no less) mental patient to the utterly insane, albeit undiagnosed… well, I suppose that would be telling. And let’s not forget the hilarious writer and delusional director. But mainly, I think, the fans.

Because the truth is, even though I can’t explain to you what possible justification I have for liking Troll 2, I would probably try to get you to watch it.  And worse, I don’t even feel that bad about it!

[1] ….yep.

Lake Mungo was the obligatory documentary ghost story. See, there’s this Australian family on Christmas vacation, and after their daughter drowns in a local lake that you would erroneously think is named Mungo, an unlikely series of twists, backtrails, and switchbacks unfolds around her haunting of her family and the area. The acting was fine, and the story was fine, but… I dunno, I think it was just a little too long. Not that this movie was the worst offender of the weekend, but I think it was the most disappointing about it, because the premise would have worked so well if they had been willing to be just a little less impressed with their cleverness.

Here are the things you should know about The Last Exorcism before you go see it.

1) Despite having his name all over the previews and posters, Eli Roth is merely the producer. It seems like he should ought to make at least a few more movies before all the new people get to attach his name to their work a la Wes Craven.
2) It is shown documentary-style, with the inevitable moments of implausibility that this brings. People carrying cameras just won’t act like this in real life situations, and Blair Witch only got away with it by being the first. That said, I only found myself rolling my eyes at the cameraman a handful of times, which is better than average.

If you can get past those downsides, it’s not a bad little movie. The premise is just about enough to justify the price of admission all by itself: a small town exorcist in the Deep South travels around in response to peoples’ letters about crazy relatives or dead livestock, puts on a nice little show for them as a placebo effect to drive away the “demons” that are vexing them, and goes home with a nice wad of cash. Only, he’s started to feel guilty about the whole thing and is getting out of the business. Not only that, but he apparently feels badly enough about it to expose the chicanery inherent in the whole system by taking a documentary crew along on what will be his last exorcism. You can guess how that turns out, of course, but there are still twists and turns aplenty before the plot is played out to its conclusion, which you may well have a prediction about already. (At least, I’ve never seen a horror-with-camera movie that didn’t end with every single character dead or worse. Have you?)