El exorcismo de Molly Hartley

I happen to really like exorcism movies so it must be very bad not to entertain me. This is a typical one. Nice special effects , quite ok acting. The story line is quite flat and there is some plot change on the end but this last 10 minutes have no added value at all. It's an ok movie on a rainy night but not more then that.

I remember watching the haunting of Molly Hartley years ago, which was alright and me being me I had to give this movie a shot. It was pretty good up until like the last minute which was a typical ending for this type of movie. Now it had its moments of originality but a lot of scenes made me think The Exorcist, green vomit stains around the mouth, the discoloration of her face, letters forming on the skin then it disappears,the breaking of the restraints and rising above a bed. This movie was not bad but not good either. To me this movie wasn't that scary and kind of predictable, but it still had some interesting scenes. I thought it was kind of slow but had its moments for me to keep watching until the end. I gave this movie a 5 out of 10 rating because like I said it wasn't absolutely horrible but not a terrifying exorcism movie

I found it to be a pretty good exorcism movie actually. The scenes were very creepy. The acting was quite good. There were only two things that kind of ruined the movie for me. The first was the choice of actor for the exorcist. They would have been better off picking an average looking Joe. Instead we get super model, chiseled, father sexy stubble.

The second and worst part was the ending. I'll be honest, the ending was just plain terrible. They had a great twist going and somehow just said to heck with it when writing the screen play. The ending had scenes that made little sense in how they developed, and the writers apparently were just tired of writing the movie.

Even though the first film (The Haunting of Molly Hartley) had disappointed me (to say the least), I still decided to give the sequel a shot, mostly due to my understanding that it would involve demonic possessions and exorcisms, which make for a good plot and a fine scare when done right. After watching it, all I can say is that I'm glad I've given it a shot, but only because I've made sure to really lower my expectations.

The story line is pretty decent, if a little corny and tacky. All grown up and celebrating her 24th birthday, Molly (Sarah Lind, a fine actress given bad instructions by an obviously mediocre director) secretly awaits the conclusion of her destiny - to give birth to Satan. To her aid come Laurie Hawthorne (Gina Holden), her doctor at the mental institution, and John Barrow (Devon Sawa), a former priest stripped of his authority after an error of judgment in his previous exorcism cause the death of his fellow priest and the possessed woman. Consumed by guilt and regret, Barlow hopes to salvage his soul by helping Molly.

Besides the story, decent acting and pretty good characters - everything else is the same let down I've grown to expect after the first film. Director Steven R. Monroe has taken screenwriter Matt Venne's good enough story and botched it with blunt and preposterous overacting, attempting to achieve a dramatic effect but failing. Both Molly and Barrow are overly melodramatic, with dialogues and monologues resembling fan-fiction written by an enthusiastic junior- high fan-girl. Absolutely nothing about the film original, and some scenes seem to have shamelessly stolen (flies and vomit from The Exorcism, the twisted crawling on all fours from The Ring/Ringu, and the hidden antagonist from The Last Exorcism, for instance). And then, of course, the completely unnecessary nudity and sex scene in the beginning... Any Horror film using that pathetic cheat is not to be taken seriously unless other aspects of it are a total divine masterpiece, which is not nearly the case for The Exorcism of Molly Hartley.

All in all, anything and everything that makes for a good exorcism film is stolen (and no, not in the way of tribute and homage, simply in the way of "I got nothing, let's steal it"). This includes the forced plot twist. Am I glad I've given this film a chance? Yes (as it's quite entertaining if one expects it to be terrible). Have I been pleasantly surprised? Absolutely not. Still beats the first film, but hardly.

So many Canadians actors in this movie. They only told them or they only wanted hire those? What's the secret? This possession happened in Canada?