Nonureva Really Surprised!

Lawbolisted Powerful

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Hayden Kane There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Sebastian1966 While it has moments here and there (not many, to be honest), this film has so little in common with its source material (Thomas Allen's book of the same name) that it is not really an adaptation at all. The dates, characters, and just about every other detail imaginable have been changed. And Timothy Dalton was thoroughly miscast (he tries to make Father Bowdern some kind of two-fisted action hero!), as was the freckle faced, red-headed boy who seemed less possessed and more in need of good old corporal punishment (more annoying than demon haunted)!There are also so many overly-stylized, almost campy moments that the film sometimes feels like a half-hearted parody of "The Exorcist" (the boys' 'good voice' when he tries to hoodwink the priests is utterly laughable). And the whole political bent with civil rights issues, and Catholic infighting (personified by the immobile visage of Christopher Plummer) feel tacked on and have little or no relevance to the story. Trust me; if you want details, this movie does not (in any way) accurately relate what happened (according to eyewitness accounts) at ALL. It is a stock, Hollywood-ized version of a story vaguely related to the actual case. I'm not sure why the producers ever called this an adaptation of Allen's book (as it clearly is NOT), but perhaps it was done for legal reasons. So many elements are changed, that they could have said 'loosely inspired by...' and it would have been more valid. But for what it's worth, if you want the "real" story (and we may never know that for certain) stick with the book (the latter 2000 edition even has excerpts from Father Bowdern's actual diaries made during the alleged exorcism; fascinating stuff). And if you're just looking for a good scary movie with similar themes? Stick with the original, the best: The original 1973 Exorcist. Forget what you may have read from any nay-sayers; it is the best film of its type EVER made. It treats the subject with dignity, gravity and a cast that is fully committed to the material (not to mention it is still scary as all hell, too). Although it is fictional, it feels so much more 'real' than this stale, clichéd, extremely loose 'adaptation' of Allen's book!

slayrrr666 "Possessed" is a rather entertaining, if clichéd version of this genre.**SPOILERS**After surviving World War II, Father William Bowden, (Timothy Dalton) spends his time either teaching missionary school or getting into fights with the police. A local young boy, Robbie Mannheim, (Jonathan Malen) soon gets his attention after a series of events that no one can explain. His parents, Phyllis, (Shannon Lawson) and Karl, (Michael Rhoades) desperate to get him fixed, offer to have him come over to the house to see what is wrong. At first thinking it is nothing more than a joke, he soon becomes convinced that the kid may indeed by possessed by the Devil. After several unsuccessful attempts to exorcise him, they try one last time to get rid of the demon inside.The Good News: When this one tried to, it had some really great parts. One thing it gets right is that it starts off with the possession early on. Around twenty minutes in, the strange events that signal the possession start off. This starts off with the usual acts that indicate this, and from there it gets better. The confrontation ins the priest's house that signals the start of something weird happening, is the film's best scene, and is right in the middle of the freaky occurrences. Starting off with the sight of objects moving about by themselves and progressing to include more extreme actions, this is a fantastic sequence that is a pure joy to watch. Even the little things thrown in, including the incredibly brutal arm-slicing with the corkscrew or the playful gag at the end, don't derail this. That it also gets quite creepy at times with the camera flashing on and off during the struggle and the wind blowing, even though it's all indoors, really makes it all the better. As expected, the exorcism scenes are all great fun, and that there's several of them appearing in the film is a pleasant surprise. The final battle is the best one, which is great fun and really intense. It really does end the film with a really good scene that incorporates some spectacle and a touch of realism. These here are the film's good parts.The Bad News: This here didn't have a whole lot wrong with it, but they were pretty major reasons. The biggest problem with it is that it never once does anything new or original with the possession angle. This feels just like every other film in this style. There's a ton of these filling up every part of the film. From the excessive cursing and religious searing to the demonic over-lapping voices to puking and overt sexual references and so much more clichés from this genre that it's simply too much at times. This is so filled with clichés from the past types that there's hardly any sense of originality in the film. That can be a really bad sign, since this is such a touchy genre to begin with. It can be really hard to find originality in this style without retreading on the past, which this one does quite efficiently. There's a couple of other flaws with this one, while the main one here is just the extreme repetition.The Final Verdict: While not the best example of this genre, this does have enough to make it watchable even though it doesn't do anything new. This is simple, as fans of this would be entertained with it, while those who don't really enjoy possession films should steer clear of this one.Rated R: Extreme Graphic Language, Violence and intense religious issues

JoshuaLieder-1 I have been watching horror films lately, which is a bit of a switch for me. I remember seeing the Exorcist films and even watched the second one again recently, wanting more of the inner life and workings of the priest, Father Merrin. This film far exceeds any I have seen dealing with this subject matter before (Emily Rose being a close second). You have the usual Hollywood stuff thrown in, but what really gave this film such a high mark for me was the great masculine, spiritually focused portrayal by the main priest as played by Timothy Dalton. His characters friendship with the other priest and his inner life is exactly what I longed for in similar films dealing with exorcism but NEVER found. This is not a perfect film and Dalton does say one famous Betty Davis line that takes you right out of the film (I laughed) but its entertaining and I think riveting. More time could have been spent with the overwrought parents, especially the dad who seemed more possessed than the kid at times, and they didn't spend months working on the child as I think it took in real life, but all in all a good faith effort. Yes, a testimony in part of the fact that Jesus has Won and Wins and that saving souls is still important even in modern times. Rent the DVD and watch the extra (a real life interview with one of the priests involved in the exorcism).

ross robinson I enjoyed watching Possessed. This one made me laugh because of the little boys impressions. I think this is the real version to the exorcist, because it was based on a true story of a young boy that is possessed by a demon. I give this movie 10 out of 10.