An agent works for a secretive organization that uses brain-implant technology to inhabit other people's bodies - ultimately driving them to commit assassinations for high-paying clients.An agent works for a secretive organization that uses brain-implant technology to inhabit other people's bodies - ultimately driving them to commit assassinations for high-paying clients.An agent works for a secretive organization that uses brain-implant technology to inhabit other people's bodies - ultimately driving them to commit assassinations for high-paying clients.
- Director
- Writer
- Stars
- Awards
- 15 wins & 40 nominations total
- Policeman
- (as Daniel Park)
- Ira Vos
- (as Gage Graham-Arbuthnot)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This is a Brandon Cronenberg film. It has his father penchant for blood. It's a fine sci-fi flick with a dash of style. The filming does need something more. I can't quite put my finger on it. It has style but it needs more. It has moments of intensity but it needs more. It has ideas about control and self-identity. I'm not completely bought into the character Tasya. I don't know who she is and quite frankly, she may not know herself. That would have been an interesting idea if it's clearer about being murky. All in all, this is more interesting than not. There are enough in here worthy of the Cronenberg name.
We need more creative works like this on horror-fantasy.
The movie has an ethereal kind of narration, which is a good choice, considering the main theme, but the pace is too slow. The director, which is also the main screenwriter, wanted to experiment, by creating strange effects and applying weird sound design and music, which I personally appreciated, but the story is not going on. There are a lot of stuff that are not explained: we never know what this agency is, why it exists, is it some kind of secret government project? Who are these agents? Why they are doing what they are doing? Do they receive a special training? Because none of this is clarified, I did not care about the context nor characters, I could not bound with them. The main character, Tasya Vos, played by Andrea Riseborough, has clearly some personal issue with the ex fiancée, or maybe husband, I don't get to know, but why her relationship is broken? What happened? Is it because of her job? You see how many questions I am writing in this review? There tons of plot holes.
After an interesting and involving intro, the screenplay starts to crumble. I have understood that the director wanted to keep a mistery-vibe, but you cannot keep your audience completely blind for the entire movie. There was a lot of potential, but it was wasted, because the director decided to play too much with visual effects, instead on focusing more on the story.
We've got mind-body duality of implanted techno body horror (from the son of the master of the subgenre) instead of dreamscape "Inception" (2010), but nonetheless for some generic corporatist plot. There's a bit of "The Puppet Masters" or "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" to the scenario, as well. An actress (Andrea Riseborough) playing a character that also is an actress--practicing her lines, fine-tuning facial expressions until literally embodying her character. It's even in her name, Tasya Vos, meaning "resurrection" and "fox," a symbolically trickster animal. A character who wears other people's faces like a mask and whose nightmare is that one of those people wears her face literally as a mask. Body and mental dysmorphia that becomes bizarre digitally dysmorphic cinematic imagery. Seeing artifacts that aren't there. An identity crisis fully emerging from wearing virtual-reality-like goggles to spy through customers' webcams through the eyes of the body that's consciousness has been hacked via Vos hooked up to another virtual-reality set. It's the sort of film-within-a-film that's within yet another film that really makes a character question their reality.
This is what got me wondering, then, about those objects Vos looks at in her debriefing meetings with Jennifer Jason Leigh's Girder (which may mean "satirist," by the way). Interesting how Leigh has been cast in so many such detached, clinician-type parts, at least of late: "Annihilation" (2018) and "Awake" (2021) being two of the latest movies I've seen with her, in addition to "The Woman in the Window" allusion to her part in "Single White Female" (1992). This is also the actress from "eXistenZ" (1999), "The Machinist" (2004) and "Synecdoche, New York" (2008). There probably aren't many actors out there more trained in the ways of reality-bending cinematic reflexivity. More interesting methinks than her ex-husband's use of meta-narratives as realistic movie therapy sessions.
Cronenberg to Cronenberg, but for the actors, Leigh's satirist grooms another actress as her successor. She monitors her character possessing via virtual-reality headwear, illustrates her slasher exploits with bloody big-screen images, and presents her objects from her past--nominally to distinguish her own identity and reality from those she possesses--but, Girder actually advises Vos to detach herself further, from the family connections that distract her from her work. Noah Baumbach should take note.
All of which makes me wonder about those objects, a pipe and a pinned butterfly. The latter seems to fit the transformation and resurrection themes well enough, but that pipe. And, boy, is there a lot of vaping in this one. A tobacco fix that isn't tobacco. A pipe that isn't actually a pipe. People possessed who aren't actually themselves. Consumers and voyeurs, not people. Pornography instead of sex. Dead images in lieu of reality. Ceci n'est pas une pipe à la René Magritte. This is The Treachery of Images. This isn't reality; it's a representation, surreal, virtual, a movie. "Pull me out."
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaMost of the special effects in the film were done practically, with an effort to use as little VFX work as possible. The hallucination scenes' effects in particular were done in-camera. Cronenberg credits his effects specialists, Dan Martin and Derek Liscoumb, and his longtime cinematographer Karim Hussain for being able to pull off convincing visuals with a minimum of CGI.
- GoofsWhen John Parse is being mutilated, his skin in the close-up shots of the wounds on his face looks completely different than it does in the rest of the scene. Mainly, it has a different color and is much smoother.
- Quotes
Colin Tate: Just think, one day your wife is cleaning the cat litter and she gets a worm in her, and that worm ends up in her brain. The next thing that happens is she gets an idea in there, too. And it's hard to say whether that idea is really hers or it's just the worm. And it makes her do certain things. Predator things. Eventually, you realize that she isn't the same person anymore. She's not the person that she used to be. It's gotta make you wonder, whether you're really married to her... or married to the worm.
- Alternate versionsPossessor exists as a cut US R rated version and an uncut MPA Unrated Version titled Possessor Uncut. The producers were keen to differentiate between the two versions and the 'Uncut' tag is an official re-titling of the film. UK releases are the Uncut Version and are 18 rated.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Possessor/Possessor Uncut Review (What's the difference?) (2020)
- How long is Possessor?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Possessor: Controlador de mentes
- Filming locations
- Toronto, Ontario, Canada(Shot on location)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $752,885
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $252,664
- Oct 4, 2020
- Gross worldwide
- $911,180
- Runtime1 hour 43 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
