The Possession of David O'Reilly (2010)

Wonderfully offbeat film!

Just perfect...

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

I saw this movie with very low expectations since the reviews and ratings on IMDb where so low. However, this is arguably one of the best horror movies I saw coming out of recent British horror cinema. The acting was good and the characters convincing, as was the cinematography. I'm usually very disappointed by many horror movie creatures. However, this movie stands out as having particularly original and gruesome creatures. As a Lovecraft fan, I felt that the movie had very appealing lovecraftian elements, especially the diary which might have been a bit much. This, along with the uninspiring title, might be my two main reproaches to the movie. Contrary to what another reviewer commented, the obscurity surrounding the creatures' motivations, the reasons for their appearance or their very existence, makes the movie even better; they don't ruin it by providing a stupid explanation as in other movies. We are left in the same uncertainty as the characters. It managed to make me doubt if I wanted to turn off the lights.I preferred this movie to Insidious and to Paranormal Activity. It clearly does not deserve such a low rating. It's simple and efficient story far surpasses the recent crap people sometimes call horror.

I just finished watching this movie and it scared the h-e-double hockey sticks out of me! I am however, confused.First of all, after reading reviews, I noticed that a tonne of people are comparing it to "Paranormal Activity". Sure, maybe if Paranormal is the horribly crappy version of it. Movies in the same genres are going to have similarities, but for people to call this a spin off of Paranormal obviously need to watch these two movies again. First of all, this movie doesn't SUCK. "The Possession of David O'Reilly" moved at a good pace, I didn't find myself getting bored. The question of whether or not he was slowly going insane, or if these supernatural occurrences were actually reality really kept me engaged the entire time. I kept going back and forth between those two questions.The only thing that I didn't totally dig, was the end. I was left feeling super confused. The camera panned over the girlfriend's body, showing that she was dead. It made me wonder, were the demons real and they killed her when she opened the door, and David was right in warning her not to? If so, then why didn't the couple see the same things that David was seeing when it all started happening more? WHAT HAPPENED?! I need to know! It's really bugging me and I don't want to watch it again...too scary. But good. ^_^

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.

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.