The Possession of David O'Reilly

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 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!

THE TORMENT is another familiar low budget supernatural horror film, this time with a British slant. The style of the movie is clearly influenced by the likes of THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PARANORMAL ACTIVITY, but the decision to shoot 90% of the scenes in a dark house and the excessive use of shaky cam means that viewers are unable to see or even make out much of what transpires. Before long you won't even care, given that the characters are so unengaging.

The narrative is a cheap three-hander in which your boringly average couple are visited in their home by one of the husband's friends. Unfortunately for them he's brought a demon with him, so lots of screaming and running around ensue. If I had found any of this in the least bit frightening I might have enjoyed it more, but as it stands it's all rather dull. The ending is boring in its expected ambiguity, and the acting is rather wobbly, particularly from Francesca Fowler.

Man's friend drops by late one evening distressed; claims his wife is having an affair. As the night progresses and the man and his wife have gone to bed we see that the friend is unable to sleep; that he's watchful and wary. Apparently there's some intense inner turmoil going on with him that has nothing to do with his wife's alleged affair. This man is seeing and hearing things; things he believes that are stalking him; waiting, watching, and wanting to harm him. What are these things? We the audience are shown glimpses but we can't tell if these things are in the real world or just in the man's mind alone. In any event, he eventually contaminates his hosts so that they too fear the unseen and unknown. The man's wife, however, remains suspicious throughout the movie that her husband's friend is one sandwich short of a picnic (okay, "mentally ill") and is therefore the real threat.

I thought the movie was psychologically interesting as it walked a line between paranormal experience and madness.That is to say, we the audience, aren't sure for sometime about what was happening. Like the man's wife, we too are suspicious that the friend is not rowing with both oars (okay, "mentally ill"). The acting is not Oscar great but is convincing enough to do the job. The story, which concentrates itself totally in the home of the man and his wife, is also decent enough to keep you curious throughout about what's going on. There are only 4 players (not counting whatever is out there) in the movie and so we are presented with yet another film doing more with less and shaming many big-budget productions that often do no better if they don't flop out right.

You know, it makes me think that maybe I could make my own movie. But I'd need a good reason for staying indoors so that people wouldn't think I'm indoors 'cause I got no money. Maybe I could draw up a script that says there's a terrible storm outside and me and a couple of my friends, who are visiting, are trapped inside. Yeah, that sounds plausible. Further, we're all hungry for pizza but know they won't deliver in the bad weather. What to do? This is the dramatic question; the nail-biting, stomach-churning-for-pizza, question. Consider: If we go out in the storm we may get killed and never ever eat delicious pizzas again. On the other hand, if we stay indoors it's like saying we don't really love pizzas. Can you imagine that?!! We're between that proverbial "brick and a hard place" folks, but must choose.

The movie progresses:

One of us suggests that we should draw straws. We all agree that this is fair. After this is done it falls on 2 of the 5 of us to brave the storm and get those pizzas. We wish our friends godspeed (as author of this farce, I am privileged to write in a short straw for myself ) and help them out the door with friendly shoves on their backs and inane remarks like "You da man, guys!" "You da man!"

Final Act:

Our friends have still not returned. But we're still hopeful even though the storm ended 3 days ago and one of our numbers has locked herself in my closet screaming from time to time "They're dead! They're dead!" We assuage any feelings of guilt and concern by offering that they're probably hold up somewhere. Yeah, that's it! They're hold up somewhere; safe and sound. Hopefully with those delicious pizzas; soggy, but still good. Hmmmmmmm. Love, Boloxxxi.