Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

SteinMo What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Ketrivie It isn't all that great, actually. Really cheesy and very predicable of how certain scenes are gonna turn play out. However, I guess that's the charm of it all, because I would consider this one of my guilty pleasures.

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!

Lee Bartholomew (imdb has a bug and I gotta write the entire review yet again.) Hate it when that happens.It's been a long time since I've seen a TV movie that was this good. Clearly from the course language, it probably was not on cbs. But I rented this film after seeing a rather large cross Timothy Dalton carried on the DVD cover. This DVD is about as bare bones as DVD's come. No CC (is that legal?) no DVD menu's. Plays just like a videotape. But a surprisingly good film. Christopher Plummer is wasted in the film. Then I'm glad to see that guy from Mission Impossible. I haven't seen him since that movie. But the real star is Timothy Dalton. Very excellent acting on his part. Almost makes me want to see his other non bond films. The movie isn't scary though. However it doesn't come across as silly like The Exorcist. But comes no where near The Omen.I wish the DVD had more backstory. It says it's based on a true story. But most of it looks like directors license to me. It's also a film that actually shows priests looking up info in the library without top notch security. Which usually shows catholics in bad light. (Stigmata) I think they came off quite well in this film. 9/10Quality: 9/10 Entertainment: 10/10 Replayable: 10/10

Amnes This is a strange film, the kid is outstanding, really amazing for a child actor, but It's like another poster said, it's like the movie has been made by different people and when you edit their bits together it doesn't work. I think the problem is the script and editing, and Timothy Dalton. There's two basic story strands, one being Timothy Dalton's war experiences and the other being a family whose child is possessed and the intercutting between these two strands just doesn't work, you feel like you're watching two unrelated films cut together. For me, the 'name' stars like Timothy Dalton and Christopher Plummer are a distraction and unknowns would have suited the film better, but eh, I guess it would never have been made without some names appearing in it.Some of the sound is actually too complex, they have some music and spooky voices underneath the dialogue track and it just makes it hard to hear the dialogue. Feels like you need subtitles at times, but some of the sound work is interesting too.However....the possession scenes and the child actor are excellent. If you have modest expectations you may enjoy this film. It's almost a good movie.

AnglRdr Sorry, I see a lot of you enjoyed this movie, but, I think it was one of the most awful cheezoid productions I've ever wasted two hours of my life watching (and, for reference, I saw "The Tuxedo").Timothy Dalton's acting (or, should I say, overacting) was tortured, belabored, and felt very ungenuine. He wasn't acting as if he were a priest; he was acting as if he were wearing a priest suit.The little possessed boy was the only one who stood a chance. He acted wonderfully. However, the non-existent technical direction made me cringe: the entire audio department on this movie should have to write letters of apology. When I saw the movie earlier this week, I thought it had been made in 1980, so poor were the technical details.If I had to choose between Possessed and The Exorcist, The Exorcist would win, hands down, every day of the week and twice on Sundays. It was, at least, entertaining.