NOTE IMDb
4,5/10
1,4 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueWhen David comes to their Victorian apartment in search of help, Alex and Kate welcome in their old friend. However they soon learn that David is convinced demonic monsters are trying to bre... Tout lireWhen David comes to their Victorian apartment in search of help, Alex and Kate welcome in their old friend. However they soon learn that David is convinced demonic monsters are trying to break in.When David comes to their Victorian apartment in search of help, Alex and Kate welcome in their old friend. However they soon learn that David is convinced demonic monsters are trying to break in.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire au total
Avis à la une
Just after midnight, a young London couple receive a visit from their friend David who appears distraught, telling them that his girlfriend has been unfaithful and needs a place to stay for the night. Sometime after three in the morning, David is left downstairs whilst the others depart. It's only whilst looking in a mirror that David sees something out of the corner of his eye and, as he investigates, he comes face to face with something utterly nightmarish. But this isn't his first encounter with the horrors that lurk in the dark. He's met them before... and now he's brought them with him to his friends' apartment.
This low budget British movie from Andrew Cull and Steve Isles has drawn a lot of comparisons to "Paranormal Activity" which is unfair. Whilst there are certain similarities (characters stalked within a building by an unknown horror over a series of nights and the use of POV shots), those similarities are quite superficial. "The Possession Of David O'Reilly" was conceived and shot before "Paranormal Activity", and seems to draw more influence from the works of Clive Barker and George Romero than Oren Peli's 2007 horror movie. This is a movie steeped in a foreboding atmosphere with long silent scenes taking place in virtual darkness, events illuminated only by a single light source – such as a cell phone or the moon through curtains.
That's not to say that the movie doesn't have some significant problems. Despite not using the 'lost footage' style of "Paranormal Activity", the directors frequently film scenes from the point of view of one of the three characters. Whilst this does add tension in certain places, it's ultimately overused diluting the intended effect as the movie continues. As with most horror movies, the main characters are also prone to making bad decisions which make their situation worse and this only serves to undermine the story in places. In addition, we are given very little back story about any of the characters and there are some definite pacing issues.
What's most frustrating about "The Possession Of David O'Reilly" is that it has the potential to be a lot better than the end product suggests. The make-up effects for the horrific creatures are generally pretty good, and often accompanied with terrific eerie sound effects that heighten the scares. In the main role, Giles Alderson is fantastic; perfectly demonstrating his character's loosening grasp on reality as events unfold. Finally, the story itself succeeds as many times as it fails, and some scenes will definitely make you jump if you're watching the movie in a dark room with no distractions.
However, I was left feeling largely ambivalent at the conclusion of "The Possession Of David O'Reilly". Whilst there were glimpses of a great horror movie at times, the absence of information regarding several key story points, and paper-thin characterisation ultimately makes it difficult to recommend. Fans of small, independent horror productions such as "The Blair Witch Project", "Bug" and (in my opinion) the inferior "Paranormal Activity" will most likely enjoy this movie, despite its flaws, and owe it to themselves to take a look in order to make up their own minds. All others should probably tread carefully here, as the decidedly average script and the previously mentioned pacing issues may not compensate for the occasional jump scare in a darkened room when something with half a face appears in a sliver of light.
This low budget British movie from Andrew Cull and Steve Isles has drawn a lot of comparisons to "Paranormal Activity" which is unfair. Whilst there are certain similarities (characters stalked within a building by an unknown horror over a series of nights and the use of POV shots), those similarities are quite superficial. "The Possession Of David O'Reilly" was conceived and shot before "Paranormal Activity", and seems to draw more influence from the works of Clive Barker and George Romero than Oren Peli's 2007 horror movie. This is a movie steeped in a foreboding atmosphere with long silent scenes taking place in virtual darkness, events illuminated only by a single light source – such as a cell phone or the moon through curtains.
That's not to say that the movie doesn't have some significant problems. Despite not using the 'lost footage' style of "Paranormal Activity", the directors frequently film scenes from the point of view of one of the three characters. Whilst this does add tension in certain places, it's ultimately overused diluting the intended effect as the movie continues. As with most horror movies, the main characters are also prone to making bad decisions which make their situation worse and this only serves to undermine the story in places. In addition, we are given very little back story about any of the characters and there are some definite pacing issues.
What's most frustrating about "The Possession Of David O'Reilly" is that it has the potential to be a lot better than the end product suggests. The make-up effects for the horrific creatures are generally pretty good, and often accompanied with terrific eerie sound effects that heighten the scares. In the main role, Giles Alderson is fantastic; perfectly demonstrating his character's loosening grasp on reality as events unfold. Finally, the story itself succeeds as many times as it fails, and some scenes will definitely make you jump if you're watching the movie in a dark room with no distractions.
However, I was left feeling largely ambivalent at the conclusion of "The Possession Of David O'Reilly". Whilst there were glimpses of a great horror movie at times, the absence of information regarding several key story points, and paper-thin characterisation ultimately makes it difficult to recommend. Fans of small, independent horror productions such as "The Blair Witch Project", "Bug" and (in my opinion) the inferior "Paranormal Activity" will most likely enjoy this movie, despite its flaws, and owe it to themselves to take a look in order to make up their own minds. All others should probably tread carefully here, as the decidedly average script and the previously mentioned pacing issues may not compensate for the occasional jump scare in a darkened room when something with half a face appears in a sliver of light.
This movie had the potential to be something better, but I found it painfully boring to try to sit through. It starts slow, the plot is weak and as others have said, there are gaps of needed information left empty. If you want a good supernatural thriller or psychological mind screw, this ain't it. The characters are weak and plastic, the cinematography has a few quality moments but these could be condensed into a 30 second clip. The storyline seems put together loosely and leaves one wondering if the screenplay never left the rough draft stage of its production. Save yourself your money and use the hour and a half you could spend watching this and do something else. To call this movie B grade is an insult to B grade movies.
Having read the reviews I settled down for a little spooky affair, already familiar with these sort of films and being of a sensitive nature I was expecting a bit of a thrill.
Whilst I enjoyed the storyline and, by the way nice flat!, as the action heated up and the first demon appeared I started to be a bit dubious that this may be a decent ride. The plot for me was interesting enough - the frantic locking of the doors, power cut, knocks and bangs - all the usual tricks, did add to the atmosphere but the girlfriend's constant question 'What's going on?' reminded me a bit of Eastenders.. 'Oi Ricky, what's going on?!' Even the boyfriend started asking his made David 'David, what's going on?'. I actually laughed on a couple of occasions.
As we start to see more of the demons appearing from the shadows they reminded me of discarded Dr Who monsters - to be honest, we don't need to see them, there's more fear of what we don't see than what we do.
Towards then end it was pretty obvious what was going to happen because we always have to have someone being killed no matter who does the killing.
Was David insane.. probably, or.. maybe not. The ending doesn't need an explanation - it is what it is.
If you like gore then you will be disappointed, if,like me, you 'appreciate' truly supernatural spooky films, again you will be disappointed. It's neither. But, it's not a bad film to while away some time.
The first Paranormal Activity had me sleeping badly for months after - that's what I call a good horror film!
Whilst I enjoyed the storyline and, by the way nice flat!, as the action heated up and the first demon appeared I started to be a bit dubious that this may be a decent ride. The plot for me was interesting enough - the frantic locking of the doors, power cut, knocks and bangs - all the usual tricks, did add to the atmosphere but the girlfriend's constant question 'What's going on?' reminded me a bit of Eastenders.. 'Oi Ricky, what's going on?!' Even the boyfriend started asking his made David 'David, what's going on?'. I actually laughed on a couple of occasions.
As we start to see more of the demons appearing from the shadows they reminded me of discarded Dr Who monsters - to be honest, we don't need to see them, there's more fear of what we don't see than what we do.
Towards then end it was pretty obvious what was going to happen because we always have to have someone being killed no matter who does the killing.
Was David insane.. probably, or.. maybe not. The ending doesn't need an explanation - it is what it is.
If you like gore then you will be disappointed, if,like me, you 'appreciate' truly supernatural spooky films, again you will be disappointed. It's neither. But, it's not a bad film to while away some time.
The first Paranormal Activity had me sleeping badly for months after - that's what I call a good horror film!
So there is no doubt this was done on a budget but even so they were smart about where they spent it. The acting was ok, not brilliant but it was fine. The script could have done with a little work but wasnt bad, just could have used a bit of a polish but overall most of the film does a good job of building suspense.
Then it gets to the end, throws all the rest of the movie out of the window for a poor "twist" ending which felt so unsatisfactory.
This one was so close to being a really good horror on a budget.... so close.
Then it gets to the end, throws all the rest of the movie out of the window for a poor "twist" ending which felt so unsatisfactory.
This one was so close to being a really good horror on a budget.... so close.
This was probably one of the most ridiculous "horrors" / "haunting" movies I have seen. Most of the time I was laughing - I laughed a lot at that dude running around screaming; I found something hilarious in how he sounded. So I guess in other words: his screams are ill suited for horror movies, and would be better suited for comedy; though I suppose when the guy wasn't screaming... the acting was okay all round, really
Apart from that: the lighting, "cinematography," and story were all below-par, and really: not scary at all, and at times it felt very forced and disjointed, as if they were struggling to make it all go anywhere.
Overall: A very "meh" movie experience.
Apart from that: the lighting, "cinematography," and story were all below-par, and really: not scary at all, and at times it felt very forced and disjointed, as if they were struggling to make it all go anywhere.
Overall: A very "meh" movie experience.
Le saviez-vous
- GaffesOn the second morning that David stays over, he takes his cell phone and sees it says "Call". He tries to answer it, and the phone then says "Low Battery". But he sees this, you can see that the battery icon is fully lit. The phone has full battery power.
- ConnexionsReferenced in Bad Movie Beatdown: Scissors (2012)
- Bandes originalesGrounds for Divorce
Written and Performed by Elbow
Written by Guy Garvey (as Garvey)/Mark Potter (as Potter)/Craig Potter (as Potter)/Pete Turner (as Turner)/Richard Jupp (as Jupp)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée
- 1h 27min(87 min)
- Couleur
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant