Benutzerrezensionen

I recently just heard of this 70's cult-classic, and some were trying to compare it to or put it in the same realm as the 1973 masterpiece "The Exorcist." Let's be honest here...the ONLY thing that "The Possession of Joel Delaney" and "The Exorcist" have in common is that both do deal with the subject of possession. Other than that "Possession of Joel" does not even come close to an ink-ling of being in the same realm as "The Exorcist."

However, this 70's horror flick is pretty good for low-budget and the topic it deals with. There are plenty of bizarre and freaky moments, and the slow mental collapse/possession of 'Joel' was amazingly portrayed by a very young Perry King! Shirley MacLaine also gives a very excellent performance as the somewhat weird and mentally troubled 'Norah'.

But, the actor I had the most respect for, and thought truly had to go through a humiliating/horrifying experience, and handled it professionally (especially at his young age at the time) was David Elliot. He was the young 13 year old son of MacLaine and had to strip naked (exposing himself entirely) after the possessed Joel forced him to dance naked around the house to terrify him. That had to be embarrassing and I'm surprised they allowed it...but he handled the situation and that scene like a pro. This scene is also somewhat shocking and makes this film remembered among horror movie fans.

Overall...again don't expect "The Exorcist", but it is frightening and the character development, filming locations, etc... are excellent! This is a must have for horror fans/collectors!

Potent, occasionally disturbing, but ultimately uncomfortable thriller from Ramona Stewart's novel concerns an upper-crust New Yorker (Shirley MacLaine) who reunites with her vivacious brother, but soon begins to suspect he's either on drugs, insane, or worse...it's worse. Unapologetic film dives in where most movies would fear to tread, and that's both pro and con. Turns out Joel Delaney has become involved in a voodoo cult and is now possessed by the soul of a vicious killer. Final moments with MacLaine and kids at the beach, cornered by Perry King's dangerous Delaney, are quite nasty...but you have to admire that final plot-twist, handled with unashamed bravado. I would recommend the picture to connoisseurs of the offbeat, even if the film is actually rather pointless, never dealing in depth with its own subject matter. ** from ****

This is a sharp supernatural thriller worth seeking out. The pace may be a little slow for some, but those who are patient will be pleased with the use of their virtue. Shirley MacLaine plays a Manhattan socialite who realizes that her brother has in some way changed. For example he now practices the Santaria religion, he speaks very good Spanish, and his health is not quite the same. MacLaine is then warned that her brother may be slowly becoming possessed by the spirit of a Spanish decapitator. Not knowing what or who to believe, she dives into the world of the Santaria faith in an attempt to get some answers on what is happening to her brother. As time goes on, the danger increases and getting the answers she seeks may prove to be fatal. Director Warris Hussein does a good job in building the suspense for the viewer and creating a frightening atmosphere to those who are not familiar with Santaria. The performances, lead as well as supporting, are first rate especially Perry King (who plays the brother) who is truly frightening towards the film's conclusion. This is very well done, and highly recommended.

I first watched this movie when I was just a teen and was riveted to the TV screen. I was amazed at the performance of the characters and the intensity of the plot. If it was to be redone today there would be no doubt superb special effects to make it seem realistic. Shirley MacLaine is quite the actress no matter what part she is playing on the big screen and even now I have high respect for her ability to perform. I like the children's roles as well they probably have never acted in their life or had little parts in commercial's or extras on other movies. I have not been able to find this movie available at video stores that deal in older movies. I live in Canada and would like to see if I can buy this movie due to the fact that I am somewhat possessed in wanting to own it.

A confused script with sexual and social overtones is hampered by Waris Hussein's flat direction, insipid dialog,and blank supporting performances. The near-incestuous relationship between Norah (Maclaine) and Joel(Perry King)is more distracting than illuminating and this is one of those thrillers where the characters always make the wrong decision in the face of danger. Maclaine's Norah leaves her children in the care of their uncle Joel after she's signed him out of a psycho ward, and discovered his girlfriend's severed head! In order to escape she takes her children to an isolated beach house off season where there is no protection or people around? Like Child's Play and The Believers, The Possession of Joel Delaney uses urban voodoo to spook the audience. Released by Paramount without any fanfare, The Possession of Joel Delaney remains a forgotten title, and understandably so.

Some people might call "The Possession of Joel Delaney" an "Exorcist" precursor, but it's more than that. It almost had a tinge of the Black Panthers to it. That is, it was one of the many movies of that era that portrayed the oppressed under-classes rebelling against the ruling class. Shirley MacLaine plays wealthy Manhattanite Norah Benson, who suspects that her brother Joel (Perry King) is possessed. But what she suspects pales in comparison to what she discovers.

I guess that another aspect of this movie is the fact that Shirley MacLaine stars in a horror movie. Yes, the woman who starred in "The Trouble with Harry", "The Apartment", "Irma La Douce" and "Terms of Endearment" (not to mention that she was one of the first American celebrities to go to China after it reopened) starred in a flick whose purpose was to invoke fear. But this one was actually good. So, that begs the question: what "possessed" Shirley MacLaine to star in that awful "Bewitched" remake? Oh well. I guess if nothing else, we need to remember the movie's tagline: "If you believe, no explanation is necessary. If you don't believe, no explanation is possible."

This movie pushes an obvious agenda, and fails. It is supposed to be some kind of commentary on the conflict between traditional supernatural beliefs of immigrants and the cold superficial rationalism of urban secular America, and the gap between the upper and lower classes. But I didn't feel while watching it that the director had any real concern for these worthy subjects - he just wanted to scare the audience with cheap shocks and distasteful taboos, and those don't create a better horror movie than the usual run-of-the-mill slasher/exploitation. The reason why the horror movies of Cronenberg, Polanski, and Craven work so well is that their very-real sociological subtext is buried just under the surface - the director is one step ahead of the audience, and the audience feels disturbed and helpless but can't fathom why. Their movies don't feel the need to rub the audience's nose in it in every scene like this one does. In fact, it seems as if this movie is working from some master-list of taboo subjects to cover - so it can proudly put check marks next to incest, mental illness, drug abuse, classism, divorce, suicide, Latino stereotypes, child nudity, possibly homosexuality, and dog food consumption. Very much a product of its time - the early '70s, when better movies pushed the social boundaries to enhance rather than replace a strong storyline like this one does.

The movie also just doesn't make sense. The sound is lousy, and the editing is simply bizarre - sometimes cross-cutting head shots of Shirley MacLaine with completely different facial expressions. There are unimportant scenes and subplots that don't belong in the movie, and many others that belong in it but inextricably aren't there (such as the entire backstory about Perry King's character - he seems to walk into the movie already half-crazy). Is there supposed to be an unexpressed incestuous relationship between Shirley MacLaine's character and her brother? Who cares? Are all the Puerto Ricans in NYC part of a creepy religious cult? Looks like it. With some of the most lazy direction I've ever seen in a big budget film, I really wonder whether the director wasn't on drugs or something. The one worthy scene in the movie is a "traditional" Puerto Rican exorcism with drums and dancing which forms a very different counterpoint to the Max Von Sydow scenes in "The Exorcist."

Originally when wide screen films were converted to vhs for home viewing on a square TV, they would cut off some of the image on either side, and restore some of the top and bottom. This is why often you might see a boom mic in the top of the frame on TV that wasn't there in the theatrical version.with this film, this process dramatically altered the content of this film in a way not intended by the director or producers of the film. In the final scene there is considerably more graphic child nudity not seen in the theatrical version, because it happened below the intended cut off line. I'd imagine most of the negative reviews come from those seeing the vhs version. For a time, vhs would be the best chance of seeing it. But now, it's dvd or streaming and will most likely be the original theatrical version. So a lot of those bad reviews really don't apply anymore. This film is rather dated, but still a decent 70s scary film with some great actors. So ignore the reviews.

Manhattan socialite begins to fear for her troubled younger brother when he starts behaving bizarrely and he seems to have been friends with a backstreet murderer.

The Possession of Joel Delaney is a dark horror film with much going for it. For one, it's among the earliest horror films to deal with the theme of spiritual possession. Also, it's one of those horror gems that doesn't need to resort to special effects or overt gore and violence to be effectively unsettling. It's a thoroughly well-written film as it blends eerie supernatural horror with a strong social commentary. The plot is compelling and quite off-beat as it builds to some chilling peaks and a finale that's splendidly suspenseful. It's a truly disturbing tale.

The direction, cinematography, and urban locations are all good but the true highlight is the stars. Veteran actress Shirley MacLaine is great as her bewildered, yet unsympathetic character. However the show is truly stolen by young Perry King who puts on an excellent dynamic performance as his potentially unhinged character. It's easy to see why King went on to a notable career after this debut.

All around The Possession of Joel Delaney is one of the finer low-key horror films of the 70's. It's a film that wisely chooses the intelligent, non-camp approach to its subject matter and it comes off a solid effective chiller because of it.

*** 1/2 out of ****

After reading a few reviews here on IMDb I thought I'd give this one a shot. This movie started out promising, but quickly became tedious and boring. This one is far too long and wastes way too much time on scenes that have nothing to do with moving the story forward. I am a huge fan of movies about possession, but this was very disappointing. It was interesting to see Shirley McClain so young, and the acting in general is competent, but unfortunately it's just not a very good example of the genre. The only really enjoyable feature of this movie for me was watching the scenery of New York from back in 1972. It doesn't change that much, really. Go rent The Eyes of Laura Mars, or The Exorcist, and skip this one.

This film is often compared to _The Exorcist_ although it was released a couple of years earlier. Certainly _The Exorcist_'s notoriety (and box-office performance) have ecclipsed this film, but horror fans shouldn't miss _The Possession of Joel Delaney_! I first became acquainted with this story when I read the novel in "Reader's Digest Condensed Books" at the age of about eleven years and, yes, it certainly upset me! It isn't as overbearing as _The Exorcist_ and doesn't boast the same shocking plot elements, languages and special effects. On the whole, though, it is somewhat more subtle. The slow process by which Nora Benson comes to realize that her brother is possessed by the spirit of a dead killer is carefully developed and will certainly hold you in suspense. _The Possession of Joel Delaney_ is very much a product of its time (the early 1970s) in its focus on drugs, racial tensions and sexuality. Even though the wardrobe, hairstyles etc. do now appear dated, the film has actually withstood the test of time extremely well. This film really helped to put Perry King "on the map," as it were, and deservedly so: the young actor met the challenges of his role quite competently. As Joel, he comes across as vulnerable, appealing and somewhat shy but, when possessed by Tonio Perez's soul, he conveys malevolence very believably: his facial expressions (aided by lighting and makeup, to be sure) and mannerisms change. The Spanish-accented voice, although dubbed, is chillingly effective and the fact that it's obviously someone else's voice actually works in the film's favor as it underscores the fact that Joel's body has been overtaken by an outside force (just as Mercedes McCambridge's vocality did for _The Exorcist_). The horror genre is often held in low esteem because it doesn't treat "themes of profound significance." Aside from the fact that I think that this statement is ludicrous in many cases (although there is no shortage of really bad horror films), it is also untrue for _The Possession of Joel Delaney_. The film was viewed primarily as a social and political commentary at the time of release. This does not mean, however, that it is "preachy," for you can easily ignore the ideological implications and enjoy the film simply as an excellent example of the horror genre. For something different and offbeat, I recommend _The Possession of Joel Delaney_.

The Possession of Joel Delaney is an interesting member of the genre of "realistic" supernatural horror films that includes "The Exorcist" and "Rosemary's Baby". Unfortunately it is marred in my opinion by some poor acting particularly (and surprisingly) from Shirley MacLaine.

It's worth hanging on until the ending, however, because (without wishing to give the plot away) it could be seen as an early prototype for "Funny Games".

Pretty bad possesson movie made the year before The Exorcist. Shirley MacCaline turned down the lead in the Exorcist to make this bomb. Bet she still regrets it.

The movie is really poorly directed. It looks like a bad TV show, not a theatrical film. And the backing musical track is one of the worst I have ever heard.

Then there's the rather poor acting -- especially the secondary characters like the woman who plays Sherry. She's absolutely horrible.

Shirley MacClaine seems to have an unusually pseudo-sexual relationship with her brother in this film. Its really weird and has nothing to do with the movie.

There's an Andy Warhol hanger-on (I think it was Pat Ast) who appears for a couple minutes is a dismal, unnessessary, scene.

The only interesting thing about the movie are the street scens of 70's NYC. How dilapidated it was, and how it's starting to look like that today.

The Possession of Joel Delaney is interesting for the fact that it's a horror film starring Shirley Maclaine, but the interesting elements end there unfortunately. The film focuses on Maclaine's character and her brother Joel Delaney. Joel begins acting strangely after a phone call and she decides to take him in to help him get over it. However, strange events continue to occur and she soon discovers a link between her brother and a serial killer who terrorised the city years earlier. The film certainly could have been interested and indeed there are films with similar plots that are really good; but this one just doesn't have enough excitement and the fact that it's pretty much impossible to care for any of the main characters doesn't really help it. The plot takes in the idea of mixing two different cultures but it never really comes off, mostly because it's too hard to care about it. The acting is mostly lacklustre and even the central actress doesn't stand out, which is a shame considering she is the only interesting thing about the film. It drones on for about an hour and a half (seems like longer) and builds up to the ending, which is not interesting and rather distasteful. I have no problems with bad taste, but it just doesn't fit here and feels included only to provide a talking point. This is a film best left in obscurity!

The film was released with a tagline "If you believe, no explanation is necessary. If you don't believe, no explanation is possible". But this film doesn't do any justice to its title or tagline. Based on the novel of the same name by Ramona Stewart, the film was supposed to be telling a story about spirit possession. But it clearly deviates so much from the topic in an attempt to try so hard to tell some personal opinions of the director.

In order to understand the true intention behind this movie, someone need to read the novel after watching it. It's shocking to see some people praising this movie, saying it's a brave attempt. Doesn't know since when child exploitation became something brave. What braveness is required for that? The final unthinkable scenes with children were not in the script, but was added by the director in its final days of shooting. The child actor, David Elliott was not even informed before taking him to the location. It's clearly a case of exploitation and cheating. No matter how we interpret it, those scenes are not fit for child participation. The years of therapy the child actor had to take proves the point.

The movie portrays Tonio's character in a very wrong manner. Tonio was actually not killing women for sexual frustration. There was a back story of neglect and exploitation he faced as a child, from his mother and grandmother. They only focused on the white, wealthy Joel and ignored Tonio completely, who is actually the exploited minority here. The movie is clearly xenophobic, portraying the Puerto Ricans as some superstitious aliens who doesn't belong there. The film feels so badly put together, as director's intention was not to create a great horror film, but rather to tell his politics.

Here, the problem is not with the decision to incorporate personal opinions in the film, but the decision to use innocent children for that purpose, by sexualizing them in the most disrespectful and possibly illegal manner. Also, the filming choices made are questionable as it captures full nudity (not visible in DVD version, but visible in VHS version) which in this case is unnecessary, exploitative and disrespectful. Those who support these kind of movies, made with exploitation, in this case towards the vulnerable children, without any responsibility or ethics, are those who drag down the art and craft of film making into rock bottom, in my humble opinion.

A man Joel Delaney (Perry King) becomes possessed by the spirit of an evil Puerto Rican man. His sister (Shirley MacLaine) tries to help him get rid of the demon.

Why do I hate this movie? Let me count the ways:

1) First off, the racism in this film is subtle...but it's there. There's a suggestion that King (whose character is rich) gets possessed because he hangs around with poor Puerto Rican people who are, by implication, evil and vicious.

2) ALL the characters are unsympathetic (even MacLaine). How can you care about a movie when you hate all the characters?

3) This movie is very slow-moving--even the "shocking" discovery of a dead body was dull.

4) The direction seems off--like the director didn't know where to point the camera.

5) The ending at the beach house was the most disgusting thing I've ever seen in my entire life. When movies lower themselves to child abuse I tune out. There's no need for that sequence to be in the movie...I really wonder how the parents of the kids could have allowed this.

6) The very end was REALLY stupid...and predictable.

Dull, sick, racist...this film was understandably a bomb in 1972. I haven't seen anyone "discovering" it lately either. Even MacLaine never talks about it. Avoid at ALL costs!

The year before the possession horror sub-genre hit big with The Exorcist, director Waris Hussein gave us this rather unassuming tale that now languishes in relative obscurity, despite starring Oscar nominee (and future winner) Shirley MacLaine.

MacLaine plays wealthy New Yorker Norah Benson, who dotes on her younger brother Joel Delaney (Perry King), who hangs out in Spanish Harlem. After Joel is arrested by the police for attacking the super of the building in which he lives, the young man claims that he cannot remember the incident. Norah becomes increasingly concerned about her brother's erratic behaviour and, after a brutal murder, learns that Joel has become host to the spirit of Puerto Rican psycho killer Tonio Peréz.

The problem with this film is that it really doesn't do much of note until the mean-spirited final act, when Joel/Tonio finally goes full-on possessed, threatening Norah and her two children with a switchblade, forcing them to degrade themselves (easily the most disturbing part of the film due to the age of the kids). Hussein throws in an unconvincing severed head or two along the way, but the bulk of the film is unremarkable and uninspired.

I've read the novel by Ramona Stewart years ago and I never knew it was adapted to a movie. I expected a lot since the novel was well written(but not a great one). But this film doesn't even feel like it's adapted from the novel. The main plot is completely altered and they included an unthinkable ending(that strip scene of the little boy is not even remotely mentioned in the novel). Since I'm dealing with psychology stuff everyday (it's my job) I always connect the movies I watch with human psychology. I'm pretty sure the people who wrote the script and those who approved to film something evil and disgusting like that, have some mental derangement. For those people who think that kind of an ending was necessary: just imagine about the person who suggested that scene, what type of mind does he has? And I don't think the nudity was unintended. How the parents of that child be so stupid (does they even knew about paedos?) I think the child actor participated should sue the studio for distributing the film without even caring about blurring that scene. I think the director, someone called Waris Hussein (never even heard he existed) doesn't know the meaning of respect, atleast to the child actors involved. He's a shame to the film industry who insulted and disrespected a child who trusted and participated on making this film. Stay away from this one for your own peace of mind.