Spring Deals Automotive HPC Best Books of the Month New-season heels nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums GNO for Samsung S9 Fire TV Stick: $29.99. Offer ends 3/26/18 Grocery Handmade Personalized Jewelry Home and Garden Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon TheGrandTour TheGrandTour TheGrandTour  Echo Dot Fire tablets: Designed for entertainment Kindle Paperwhite AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Shop now TG18PP_gno

on January 17, 2011
Thar be spoilers here

Based on its average 5/10 rating on IMDB, I expected a lame movie. What I got was a lame movie, with an extra heap of bad, and a twist ending so off-the-wall and incoherent, it's comical.

The movie plays itself like a documentary, featuring Cotton Marcus, a charismatic young reverend and family man who is perfectly performed with great subtlty and realism by Patrick Fabian. The level of sleaze you get from the way he preaches and what he says to the documentary crew is perfectly balanced by innocence and/or well-meaning. It's not exactly disrespectful or offensive that, daring the interviewer he could preach his mother's banana bread recipe and people wouldn't notice, in mid-preaching he ends up doing it, and receives the same exultations he received preaching scripture.

Another thing which struck me was how he claims he does not believe in demons or exorcisms, yet still does (and charges) for exorcisms anyway, not because he's a conman or a crook, but because he believes he is helping the person with their psychological delusion of posession, and of course is doing a job and needs to be paid; he has a family.

So for the documentary crew, he responds to a call for an exorcism to show them on camera. The amount of time the film actually takes just for the introduction and the prelude is rather long, and would be a waste of time if Fabian weren't so deeply involved in his role. When they come to the area, they stop a young man to ask where the farm is. He says they're going the wrong way, they need to make a U-turn, go past where they saw everything already, and go back where they came, which was a pretty elaborate way of telling them to go EFF themselves or to please leave. Then he throws mud clods or rocks at their car when they go to the farm anyway.

Awkwardness abounds as it turns out the man is the son of Louis Sweetzer, the guy who called about the posession. We then go about introductions to the various people, Caleb being the son, Nell being the daughter who was posessed, supposedly, and brief insight into the family history. Then we get an interesting few scenes as Cotton Marcus unfolds that bit of conman out, showing how he sets everything up like a magician or a carnie, dropping something into a bowl of water Nell's feet are in so the water bubbles, a sign that something is wrong with her, to making sure her bed is slightly wobbly, tying fishing wire around it, hiding small speakers to play various types of sounds, screams, 'demonic' voices, etcetera, with some of it interspersed with the actual exorcism itself. While Caleb has him figured out, he wants to watch anyway because it's funny.

The exorcism comes off rather comedic without any background music or atmosphere, and with Cotton Marcus hamming it up to a boisterous degree, concluding with him supposedly pulling the demon out, and clutching a crucifix, which a cutaway shows us is modified with an engine of some sort inside to blow smoke out, as though it were burning him.

Of course by the end of it, he goes to the hotel, the father is grateful, and the story isn't over at all, as you know, and Nell ends up coming to their hotel in the middle of the night, some five miles away from the house, kissing and grinding against the woman leading the documentary, and suddenly throwing up, and they take her to the hospital.

To their credit, the film makes it seem as though she's lying about this in order to hide a secret pregnancy or something of the sort, which the documentary woman initially suspects might be the result of her father raping her.

More and more horror-type stuff happens, such as Nell walking around at night, acting scary and quiet, to the cameraman shutting off the camera, only for the camera to come back on, obviously stolen by Nell as it films her feet, then films her wandering about crazily, and then using the camera to beat a cat to death, which SHOCK! she drew a picture of a cat with bloodspots and holes in it the day earlier! She also drew a picture of a man standing before a big fire with a crucifix, and of the cameraguy stabbed dead and the documentary woman beheaded.

Because the local pastor Joseph Manley had a falling out with Louis, they can't convince him to take the girl to a psychiatrist or a mental help specialist. She starts acting crazy again, including slicing Caleb's face with a knife, and after enough craziness and with Louis threatening them with a gun, Cotton Marcus agrees to do another exorcism. This time, Nell does crazier things, like arching her back sharply, screaming and claiming she's a demon, rather realistic without special effects loony-ness, but also rather convincing.

However, he figures out she's faking it (somehow) because she taunts him by asking if he wanted her to give him a "blowing job" which he figures a 16-year old girl homeschooled for several years wouldn't know what it's properly called. He calls out her, and she breaks down and confesses that she had sex with a boy named Logan who worked at a cafe. Her speaking in the third person seems maybe to imply that she's "pretending" to still be a demon or something. Pastor Manley and his assistant Becky Davis then come to provide religious comforting and counseling for them while Marcus and the others leave.

At this point, the movie is almost completely over, and thus far seems to not really have a coherent plot. What is shown is that Nell was apparently lying and pretending to be posessed in order to hide a pregnancy, but this isn't ever really made clear, and is further muddled by Nell apparently still "pretending" to be posessed even while describing the events leading to her having sex and getting pregnant.

Then, Cotton Marcus decides to stop by the cafe and find Logan. Logan claims he never had sex with Nell and barely knew her, that they just met at a party or gathering thrown by Pastor Manley, and implies he isn't interested in Nell, while the camera focuses on his vaguely feminine mannerisms. In the car, they just outright claim he's gay, and head back to the farm to find out what's happening.


When they get there, the house is empty, with satanic imagery painted all over the walls, and they head out into the woods, hearing chanting, and they find... Nell laying on a table in an open field, with a bonfire burning, and Pastor Manley dressed in red robes chanting stuff with people around him, and Louis tied up and blindfolded nearby.

This is apparently the twist ending; the Pastor is a satanist, and they're having some satanic ceremony in which they pull the baby out of Nell, and it's "not human" because it's small and making weird squealy noises. They then throw it into the bonfire for some reason. Then, REMEMBER THE PICTURES! The ones Nell drew. Cotton Marcus runs up to the bonfire as it grows comically larger, holding up a crucifix, and someone attacks the documentary woman and decapitates her with a shovel, leaving the cameraman to run off on his own when suddenly OH NOESZ he runs into Caleb, with a bandage over his sliced face! And Caleb kills the cameraguy. And then it just ends.


A movie with a twist ending usually (if it's a decent movie) has that twist ending occur as it a driving force behind the movie's plot, with blatant hints left for people to pick up, and completely misinterpret (like The Sixth Sense). Some twist endings seemingly come out of nowhere, but have a firm basis in the plot, some bit of foreshadowing, and ultimately make sense when you think about it in retrospect (like Saw, Saw IV, Fight Club).

What this movie's twist ending instead displays is a complete and utter arse-pull; it comes out of nowhere, with no foreshadowing, no buildup, no hints or clues, nothing whatsoever. And the level of surrealism to it makes it absurd, to the point where where I should have been shocked or terrified, I was completely withdrawn from the immersion of the film, asking "What the hell is this?"
77 comments| 18 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on August 30, 2010
"If you believe in God, then you must believe in the Devil."

The Last Exorcism is a well-acted and directed mockumentary that might stray too far from the disturbing subject matter one might expect. I mean c'mon, this is a story about demonic possesion! But instead of getting viciously subdued in a devilish chokehold it allows the viewer to smile and slurp vigorously on their sodas while easily sustaining all urinary fluids. Dang it, I had my heart set on peeing my pants.

But that's not to say the story isn't compelling. Reverend Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) is an evangelical minister who doesn't exactly practice what he preaches. He has made a nice profit performing bogus exorcisms on people thought to be possessed. Now Cotton has decided to expose his own fraudulent schemes by making a documentary of these little scams. In a roundabout way he'll actually be doing God's good work by revealing the truth.

Demons probably don't appreciate being made into a mockery. Sleight-of-hand and other little tricks don't put an end to the hellacious problems a farmer is experiencing with his daughter. Faith, or lack their of, is challenged in a real, sinister fashion.

Don't be expecting too much in the way of bone-fracturing, spider-crawling, supernatural psychedelic insanity covered in gallons of vomiting spewage. Ain't gonna happen. It does have some fairly creepy moments, and the hand-held camera gives it a genuine level of discomfort. But realize, this is nothing extreme like William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist. Perhaps it's the more family-friendly version.
77 comments| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on November 18, 2010
I saw this movie with a buddy shortly after getting back from a couple differant flights. I was pleased with the movie(Being an avid non theater kinda guy, 9.75 for one ticket!?!) and felt it was well worth the 10 bucks. My buddy didn't like it, Upon questioning later he said in so many words "Because I didn't want that to be the ending, I wanted to see more". I agree, If there is a sequel I will definatly see it if I'm not busy. I'll elaborate on what some of the other negative reviews said.

-Shakey Camera and Dizzyness. I had absolutly no problem with it, I hardly noticied it after awhile into the film. Though, I have been drown proofed, water boarded, jumped out of helicopters 70 feet above the river, done the "run and puke", etc. I don't have a problem with dizzyness unless I am severly dehydrated. I felt the camera shakeing that was there really added to the "realism" of what the story was trying to convey onto how "We" see it. And, for your typical movie goer, I would think add a flavor of "OMG" while walking back into thier dark empty house. Also, My buddy has none of the military or paramilitary backround that I do, he had no problem with dizzyness or the camera "Shakeing".
-The ending. Everyones an individual; with that said, I disagree. I really enjoyed the ending, and my buddy would to if they elaborated on it(Sequel. I'm sure some people will yell something about Capatalism. I'm sure most of them have a shiny rock on thier finger or thier wife does...) The people that didn't like the story and/or ending to thier movie remind me of the people who at the end of the Sixth Sense went "Oh Come On! He never notices the exit wound!?!".
-It being a "fake" documentary. Really? You felt the need to post that? If this really happened you wouldn't pay 9.75 to see it, It'd be all over every major news network. If you arien't thrilled with them putting out "fake" documentarys, Why did you pay to see this? And if you didn't pay to see this, Well, Can you complain about the brakes on a stolen car?
-Bad acting. Well, Then i'm curious what qualifys as "good" acting. I thought the acting was outstanding, Especially considering that the girl playing Nell did all that crazy bending of her body naturally. That is not special effects. Considering I've dated some pretty flexiable girls and I am double jointed myself, I cringed at a scene when they attempt to make a "deal with the demon".
-Not scary(enough). Well, The theater I was in everyone I had eyes on jumped several times. Myself included. It wasn't "I'm afraid to go to my car" scary for anybody that I saw. You weren't scared, so what?

So to finish, See this movie at your "Own risk". I thought the movie was good, Not great. I made this review to help put in perspective some of the negative reviews. Many people(like my buddy), went home immediatly afterwards mad about the ending. The ending doesn't leave any more plot holes than any other movie, probably less. Rent it for a couple bucks, See it. If you don't like, move on. Don't say "That was a waste of 3 dollars and an hour and a half!". You could have been doing any number of productive things. I've seen 17 year olds who complained less during log PT. I wouldn't say its a diamond with a flaw, More of a perfect pebble. Hopefully, You enjoy it.
55 comments| 56 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 18, 2011
This is worth a rental and I saw it in the theater and was really enjoying it--until the final 3 minutes.

No spoilers here, just a warning that the end of this movie is just dreadful. Also, MANY of the scenes in the trailer and shown in the poster do NOT occur in the film. The poster of her bent over backward---well, she bends over backwards, but not THAT far.

And the poster with her on the ceiling? Never happens.

Again, a rental that really delivers--until the end....
66 comments| 29 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on December 7, 2010
This movie was absolutely terrible. I can only imagine that the two people that gave it a five (as of this writing) were on some intense form of psychodelic substance.

First of all, it is not original in the slightest. It borrows from multiple movies similar to its kind, including the documentary style of the Blair Witch Project (which was at least one of the first of its kind). It also has some typical exorcism movie traits, such as contorted body parts and girl chained/strapped to bed. Also, don't forget a little Rosemary's Baby.

Secondly, I believed throughout the movie that the girl was just crazy. There were no real signs of possession that a crazy person couldn't have pulled off just as easily. And maybe the writers meant to do it this way so we could make up our own minds about if she was really possessed or not. If that was the case, however, they definitely ruined this idea by throwing in an ending that made up our minds for us and was simply dumbfounding.

Finally, please don't buy this movie or if you must, please find it in the $4 bin after it has been out for a few months. It's that bad.
44 comments| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 13, 2011
Cotton is excellent at what he does, and what he does is perform. Exorcisms, mostly. Ironically, Cotton is also an atheist, but there is a lot of money to be made in 'faith' healing. He finally quits the practice after a news story surfaces about a young boy who was suffocated to death during a failed attempt at ridding him of his demons. Now, Cotton has hired a film crew to follow him and document one final case of exorcism, where he hopes to disprove its very existence by exposing himself as a fraud in order to prevent others from suffering a similar fate. What he doesn't know is that the devil has other plans for him...

THE LAST EXORCISM is a clever and ambitious attempt on the subject of demonic possession that is sure to leave audiences divided. It takes the same Mockumentary approach as Scott Glosserman's brilliantly scripted BEHIND THE MASK: THE RISE OF LESLIE VERNON, presenting itself as fact but with more than a hint of sardonic humor. Unlike so many other low-budget features that use the 'found-footage' approach as a cover-up for poor filmmaking, the stylistic choice here is, in every way, essential to the plot. Patrick Fabian comes off as being a bit eccentric at first, but as the film progresses, Cotton drops his preacher 'persona' and allows Fabian to become increasingly believable. The young victim, Nell, is played by Ashley Bell, who is deathly terrifying in the role. Her subtle smiles and cold, dark stares are equally chilling, but what may be most disturbing about her possession is that each of her contorted movements and frenzied attacks are strictly grounded within Bell's physical range. There is no projectile vomit, levitation, or head spinning here, just wild-eyed insanity and bestial rage.

Plenty of ambiguity can be found all throughout the film. Cotton is at least upfront about his deception, but from the second he steps onto the Sweetzer farm, it seems like he is the one being lured into an elaborate hoax. Even the controversial ending must be taken with extreme prejudice, since it is opens itself up to countless interpretations. On top of the obvious battle between good and evil, THE LAST EXORCISM touches on several other powerful themes, including the restoration of faith and the fearsome effects of religious fanaticism. Two points of contention do act against the film, hoever. The filmmakers cheat by enhancing the audio and injecting frightening sound effects over several of the scenes, which directly counts against the authenticity of the footage. Also, Nell's violent and bloody outbursts are never again examined after Cotton and his team make their shocking discovery before the closing scenes.

Like THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE (and quite unlike the recent EXORCIST prequels), THE LAST EXORCISM presents something that is truly unique and original to the genre, making it a welcome addition to the long line of exorcism films from the past several decades.

-Carl Manes
I Like Horror Movies
22 comments| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on July 16, 2016
First of all I am a huge horror movie fan so I have seen pretty much every movie about posession, exorcism, etc. At first I was turned off by this movie because it was found footage & at the time that this came out, there were too many found footage movies. But after a few years, now I enjoy watching this one usually followed by the sequel. A preacher who makes a living by setting up fake exorcisms arrives on a farm in the depths of southern Louisiana thinks he is earning a quick paycheck only to come face to face with something he himself never truly believed in. Ashley Bell does an excellent job at playing Nell, the girl who is supposedly possessed. I don't want to give away any spoilers but personally, I didn't expect what happened in the end. What I love about this movie now that I've come to appreciate it for what it is, is that the cast does an amazing job in their performances, the score is great & there are plenty of great scares that I enjoyed. There is also a mystery going on here & you don't really know what's real and what's not. Also the setting really draws you in. I love the deep southern, creepy Louisiana feel that this movie has going on. I'm glad that they moved on from the found footage type of film in the sequel which I enjoy even more than this one but this is a fun horror movie with a great cast that you need to see for the origin of the story. Just give it a chance. It's not the best horror movie in the world but it's also not the worst and personally, I don't think this movie deserves all of the hate that's it's gotten among horror fans.
review imagereview imagereview image
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 5, 2011
I'm more than a little tired of people that watch documentary style "handheld camera" films and then complain about the format or the constant movement of the images. If these things bother you enough to write a review bashing them why not stop watching films done in this format? Nobody has tricked you into thinking these were traditionally filmed movies. The trailers make it pretty obvious.
Anyway...This movie is actually above average considering it's contemporaries. At least it's not a remake. The acting is great for a horror film (the fact that all of the characters are somewhat flawed give them a very believable human quality), the tension slowly builds, and the plot is engrossing.
The end...Yeah it's cheesy but what do you want? Did you go into this thinking you were watching Citizen Kane? It's a horror movie. It has a crappy ending. Guess what...THEY ALL DO. The end of The Last Exorcism is no goofier than the ending of Rosemary's Baby and that is considered a classic piece of cinema.
The Last Exorcism is fun, even on repeat viewings. Everybody needs to take a deep breath and count to 10. If some of these reviewers actually sat down to watch a movie about a preacher giving an exorcism to a posessed girl that might be pergnant with the child of a demon and expected this to be firmly rooted in reality, not to mention free of any "silly " scenes, then these people shouldn't be allowed to watch any more movies. Netfilx and Redbox should ban them all because they are hopelessly stupid.
33 comments| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on January 16, 2011
Mental illness is a scary thing to witness, be it medical or otherwise. In the dark ages, everything not normal was attributed to evil spiritual influences; namely, the devil. I see possession as a moot point, disbelieving most accounts I hear of, but what of those select few, where you just don't know?

"The Last Exorcism" is a work of fiction, one I originally didn't feel I would like. It has the all-too-common hand-held "shaky-cam" look to it, a film within a film, the trend of the past twelve years or so. And the "Iris" character, though portrayed competently by Iris Bahr, lingered in my memory as Larry's assistant from "Larry The Cable Guy - Health Inspector." I normally don't do this. I can compartmentalize people so they aren't typecast to me, but I backslid a little here. In this case she is in the role of someone assisting in the filming of a documentary about a religious sham which goes terribly wrong, but I kept remembering "Health Inspector." And that isn't fair to her. She did a good job.

The Movie (contains some spoilers):

"Reverend" Cotton Marcus is a self-admitted charlatain, a scam artist. He's in it for the money, but he also realizes people are willing to do awful things in the name of faith. He thanks God (does he really? hmmm...) that his son is relatively healthy, born after a very risky pregnancy, while a boy the son's age was recently suffocated during an exorcism - the people involved tied a plastic bag around his head, asphyxiating him to death; is this REALLY "God's Work?" So, in the name of preventing such tragedies in the future, Rev Cotton is displaying, on film, all the little secrets he uses to fool people in his documentary; in this case, the family of a nice girl named "Nell," a very pleasant girl, with the wrinkly-nosed smile and so forth, but she sleepwalks, and her somnambulism includes some extremely violent behavior. He says he'll do an exorcism, and one quickly happens. WRONG!!! This doesn't happen - there is supposed to be a thorough church investigation; this takes time, and the ritual probably won't be authorized. (Don't I sound like Karras from "The Exorcist?) This guy dives right in, with all his smoke and mirrors, poor, gullible suckers, and a large wad of cash subsequently trades hands. Why again do less and less people trust their clergy? I'll take greed for $500, Alex. Reverend Marcus needs to pay for his son's new hearing aid, and God isn't going to foot the bill... it's sickening.

But when it becomes apparent that Nell's condition is more serious than previously assumed, Cotton realizes he is in over his head. Not only is he dealing with what's probably a real demonic invasion, the situation is worsened by suspicions of sexual abuse, including incest. The girl wakes up while "drowning" a porcelain doll, and the limbless family tree is assumed. After another exorcism, the blame for the pregnancy is placed on a boy named "Logan," but his Justin Bieber hair-do gives him away; Nell's a nice girl, but not his thing (puke).

I have appeared to give a lot away, but not really. More twists and turns ensue, and the ending is kind of a surprise, though sudden.

It's not a bad film at all, just not a classic; hopefully, they won't sequel it.

As for the account of a real possession in the features, I don't believe it. Believe it if you want to, but I don't; it's only propaganda.
22 comments| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon August 28, 2010
THE LAST EXORCISM is yet another horror movie told through the use of "captured by someone who just happens to be filming for some other reason" device. Examples include THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (which started it all, for better or worse), PARANORMAL ACTIVITY (captured by a home camcorder), DIARY OF THE DEAD (captured by the camcorder of a college student, plus other video from the web), CLOVERFIELD (camcorder), QUARANTINE (local news cameraman with an endless battery), etc. In this current film, the events are captured through the raw footage taken by a low-budget documentary filmmaking team.

But I must give credit once again to a device that continues to work effectively, at least in the realm of the horror movie. I have trouble imagining a successful romantic comedy, for example, or a courtroom drama (but then again, no one has tried, so maybe I'm wrong). I know a lot of people literally get sick at all the jerky camera motion...but I find it all quite compelling. There's something about the dread that builds because it seems like you never know what the guy wielding the camera is going to capture...and more importantly, what he ISN'T going to capture. Often, we hear screams or unsettling noises off screen, and the camera man never catches the visuals to go with it. Or sometimes the camera swings past something and we catch only a brief, terrifying glimpse. It's all becoming somewhat hokey...but if it's done with some care, it still works. It works in THE LAST EXORCISM.

In the opening section, we meet Rev. Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian), a revival-tent style preacher from Baton Rouge. He's been preaching and healing since he was a child, and he's also made a good living performing exorcisms all around the south. Turns out, however, that he has long since lost his faith...and he's become a cynical performer...effective in his use of vocal cadences, bible-thumping, scripture quoting and in having the general demeanor of a fire-and-brimstone kind of guy. But he claims the exorcisms are done to help people who really need psychological help...but often fall prey to folks who really believe in demon possession. He uses tricks to convince folks the demons in them have been driven out...because he believes they are simply delusional and that he can break the delusion without actually performing dangerous rituals on them.

Do you see where this is going? A film crew is going to follow him on one of his cynical exorcisms...in fact, his last one, because the film will expose him. So he's drawn to a rundown farm house somewhere in Louisiana, where the Sweetzer family's teenage daughter Nell (Ashley Bell) seems to be possessed. Her family is just her grief-stricken father, who after the death of his wife has withdrawn his children from the dangers of the world and her enormously creepy brother Caleb.

The movie takes quite awhile building everything up, from introducing the characters to exposing all the little tricks Rev. Marcus uses in his fake exorcism. At first, all seems to go just as Marcus expected, and Nell is cured. But circumstance draws him back...and he is forced to reevaluate his dismissal of demon possession. Lots of screaming, cutting, running, swearing and more screaming occur...all captured in jerky style by the ever-present camera.

The ending of the film is more over-the-top than the events leading up to it earn. And many in the theater were clearly disappointed by the abrupt conclusion...so be warned, this isn't a perfectly satisfying movie with a great dramatic arc and an artful resolution. But while not quite as on-the-edge-of-your seat nerve-wracking as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY...the creepiness factor is quite high.

This convincingly tense atmosphere is helped by better than usual performances for a low-budget movie of this ilk. No performers are well known here (they can't be for such a filming style to work), but they are a cut above folks like the stars of PARANORMAL or OPEN WATER or BLAIR WITCH. Fabian is quite commanding and convincing as a charlatan with good intentions. He's our de facto guide through the turmoil, and he gives us just the right amount of oily insincerity mixed with genuine concern. And when the you-know-what hits the fan, he finds reserves of bravery. But just as compelling is Ashley Bell as the victim, Nell. She is utterly convincing as a sweet, naïve girl who has been homeschooled and sheltered for years. There's a touching scene early on when she acquires the shoes from the sound engineer...it's simple but says a lot. And later, when the you-know-what hits the fan...she can scream and slash and snarl with the best of them. I would also point out Caleb Landry Jones as Caleb, Nell's brother...who has a mysterious agenda of his own. In his first scene, he gives Marcus a smile that gave me goosebumps up my arm.

THE LAST EXORCISM is not a classic like THE EXORCIST. Likely, it will fade from memory in fairly short order. But sitting there in the dark, packed theater, popcorn and Dr. Pepper at the ready...I had myself a very enjoyable 99 minutes of being creeped out. If that sounds like fun to you...then I suspect you'll enjoy the film.
22 comments| 3 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse