Konterr Brilliant and touching

Manthast Absolutely amazing

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

sligocait I buck the tide of negative opinions of this film. It is not as salacious as "The Exorcist", which was written based on this true incident from 1949 mid-west America, and because we've become so used to vivid violence in movies, perhaps this movie suffers for not making up the details or punching them up to be more shocking to viewers. At any rate, I found it to contain an excellent performance by Timothy Dalton in particular and by the entire cast in general. Casting a red-headed, freckled boy caused at least one reviewer to mock the choice for the possessed child, but I remind everyone that Linda Blair was a cute, sugary-sweet child in "The Exorcist" as well, so I don't agree that this boy was a bad choice. Something really happened to a young adolescent boy in 1949 that was seen by and chronicled by many; it's amazing to me that his true identity hasn't slipped out after 60 years, but how do we know that he was NOT a red-haired, freckled child? I found the movie to be interesting and believable. No, it is not the most graphic horror film I've ever seen but it doesn't have to be. All it needs to do is to tell it like it really was, not how some writer imagines it, and I think that it succeeded very well in that way.

MoneyMagnet This would have been a really fine telefilm if only the director and/or screenwriter had made up their mind what kind of movie they wanted to make of this story. A subtle psychological drama where possession was only hinted at? Or an all-out, balls-to-the-wall action/revenge film (with holy water instead of M-16's)? About three fourths of the way through, this movie changes rather ludicrously from the former to the latter. In one particular non-dialogue moment, shortly after the two priests' pre-game pep talk in the monastery chapel, I was like, "No way. They DID NOT just go there!" (I won't give away what this moment was, but if you watch the DVD you'll know exactly what I mean.) That said, this is a very well produced and well acted project. Even though the tone shifts all over the place and is seriously off the chain at the end. Timothy Dalton gives a fine and accessible performance (albeit, as the type of priest that exists only in Hollywood -- the studly, hardbitten, chain-smoking, foul-mouthed, whisky-drinking, punch-throwing cynic with a Purple Heart and PTSD). His sometimes-American, sometimes-British accent is all over the map but you don't really notice after a while. By the end of the movie he is channeling Harrison Ford big time. He looks good and has several terrific scenes before everything goes completely over the cliff into silliness (the script and direction's fault, not his).Dalton is ably backed up by Henry Czerny as another priest, by Christopher Plummer as an archbishop, and the actor playing the possessed kid is quite good too. It's just such a shame that as the film goes on, every scene seems to be taken out of a different playbook (Serious Drama! Psychological Complexity! Rambo!) and the actors have to all keep up as best they can. The fine cast isn't wasted, so much as they are thrown this way, that way and the other way from scene to scene by the unfocused tone of the screenplay.This movie could have been so much better if they just canned a lot of the suggestive music, kept the emphasis on the psychological and the subtle (there ARE some subtly creepy moments that really work, at least in the first half), and canned the whole misguided "Raiders of the Lost Souls" crap at the end.The best compliment I can give this film, is that I would have liked to see a weekly series with Dalton and Czerny as priests solving murder mysteries or something. They made a good team.

Seikan One of the first underrated films of the new millennium, Timothy Dalton stars in a most gripping look at the art of Exorcism by taking the actual case, making minor changes for the cinema screen and ultimately delving into the emotional aspects of the boy and his family.All doubters of this film complain that it completely rips off The Exorcist and rehashes all aspects that made the 1973 blockbuster a hit, but while there may be many things similar, including the suffering the boy goes through in the duration of his possession, you cannot help but realise the genius behind this movie: this is what really happened.None of the characters are fictional, this boy Robbie was really possessed. And with such classic elements of real occurrences, including the urine expulsion; words on the skin and furniture movement, it's hard to really put this movie down on your blacklist unless you are ignorant and nailed to the fictional story of The Exorcist.Don't expect to be frightened by this movie, rather intrigued. This is not a scary movie, it is simply an interesting film detailing the only American Demonic Possession recorded.Overall, 8/10, the directing and screenplay was brilliant, however the actor playing the possessed child was an awful choice, with amateurish handling and this child looking like he's having too much fun playing the role. This being a big change from the Exorcist, where Linda Blair went mad after filming and underwent serious councelling to regain her head.

jwpappas I couldn't figure out if this made for cable would be shocker was meant as a satire or not. Its not funny enough to be a comedy & not scary enough to be a thriller. It has the appearence of a movie that was rewritten by several different people. Parts of it are satirical send ups of 1950s Cold War paranoia as well as religious hyprocracy, parts of it are gory & parts are trying (unsuccessfully) to be frightening. In the hands of someone like David Lynch, Sam Raimi, Stuart Gordon or even Frank Henenlotter these parts could've gelled together & made an effective thriller & social satire. POSSESSED however is a bunch a parts that don't fit & the result is substandard cable fodder