The Possession of Michael King

I might have given this a 5 instead of 6 were it not for this film being director David Jung's first directorial effort. It is a well constructed film that shows a lot of promise, even if it doesn't quite deliver a completely satisfying experience. Jung, though he limits himself somewhat with the quasi-"found footage" conceit employed here, has good instincts about how to create a chilling atmosphere and doesn't overdo all the tricks and clichés of horror film making these days. He uses them, but not to excess.

Unfortunately, the story and screenplay (also credited to Jung) could have used more work. A lot of the scenes and shots are composed as if they are supposed to be captured by either cameras rigged up in the house or characters in the film, but then some aren't. It's not really clear what we're supposed to think. The lack of scenes with any meaty conversations means that most of the cast doesn't make much of an impression. Only an early scene where Michael King confronts a psychic "spiritual adviser" about her fakery is particularly effective, and actually gives Dale Dickey, as the psychic, something good to work with. Most of the film rests on Shane Johnson's shoulders as the titular character, and he does a good job given how much he has to sell here (practically the whole movie). We don't get much back story, it's not even clear how these people (a documentary filmmaker and an aspiring actress waiting for her big break) have so much money that they can afford a big atmospheric horror movie house and tons of expensive A/V and computer equipment. It just doesn't seem like Jung thought much about what kind of life these characters have when they aren't on screen. That means it's hard to get invested in what happens to them and that much harder to get scared by the action, because these folks just don't really come to life as much as they should.

This is pretty much a film I'd recommend only to horror fans who want to keep up with the genre and check out promising new filmmakers. I'm not sure anyone else would particularly enjoy watching this.

I was highly skeptical (but also bored) and so I decided to give this film a try and I'm glad I did. After seeing the low score I was expecting something boring, with cheap scares and bad visual effects. But quite the contrary, the main character acting is believable, visual effects though scarce are well made and add to the scariness of some scenes, and it's overall a refreshing horror flick that makes good use (but doesn't abuse) of the "found footage" format that is so popular in horror movies these days.

The only thing that I found annoying it the LOUDNESS of some scary parts. I was watching this movie with headphones on and at a moderate volume and after the first official scare I was nearly deaf. I think they went a little bit overboard with the sound contrast, so be warned..

7.5/10

A halfway decent plot is the only thing that really ties this movie together. The acting is actually pretty good, and there are even some very interesting characters that you can tell are having good fun with their parts. It's a simple plot, but grows on itself in an organic sort of way, consistently adding cohesive elements that work with the original idea. It's good writing.

Then there are two very real negatives to address. This is supposed to be a found footage feature, but when the camera hops too and fro and flips scenes so that you can see better, it really just destroys the illusion horribly. There are even instances where the camera appears to defy the action in the scene, such as remaining perfectly still while a crash has apparently happened. This sort of thing asks you to "turn off your brain" while you watch it. But honestly no one can really do that. There's always a little voice that says, "Hey, the camera can't do that! Oh yeah, this is a movie." It serves to impolitely yank you out of the immersion.

Make up your minds people. Is it, or is it not a found footage film? If it's not, then stop pretending that it's supposed to be.

Ultimately, the real problem is that this movie ends up being a simple jump scare feature. It's like having someone periodically popping a balloon in your ear while you are reading a scary book. Your adrenaline rushes, your heart pounds, your ears ring, and you exhibit all of the symptoms of "being afraid" without actually having a reason to be afraid. It's a cheap trick, and honestly it's very disappointing.

What's worse is that the "scare" volume is so incredibly high compared to the rest of the film that it's almost downright rude. After the first few times, I felt compelled to turn it off, but stuck it out instead only to have it periodically blast me throughout the rest of the feature. It's downright irritating.

All in all though, a pretty fun movie. I'm giving it a 7.

"Wow, here we go again: another generic possession movie" is what I was thinking before watching this movie, but man was I surprised.

What we have here people, is possibly the best possession movie since The Exorcist. After years of disappointment, we get a gosh darn thrilling, creepy, and interesting movie of this sub-genre. If you're a skeptic of the found footage style of filming, I would say this movie will change your mind. You get up close and personal with the protagonist and his descent into madness. And speaking of the protagonist, kudos to the lead actor because he carries the entire movie (as he should).

The only gripe I have would be that the plot is underwhelming because if you watched any other possession movie, you know what's going to happen. Other than that, this movie represents the genre extremely well. It's a must see for horror fans!

Starts out pretty well. About half way through it just started losing me. Was too on the nose and it became less a found footage film and more an exorcist type film and shows the audience way too much in the way of camera angles ect. Stopped feeling like a f.f. movie.