Review: the Possession of David O'Reilly (2009)

I will admit, I am one of those moviegoers that, once I grasp on to a movie that piques my interest, I research it to no end. I read dozens of reviews for it, I read message board posts, I watch the trailer...anything that can give me an idea of what I am in for. Now, I'm careful to avoid the spoilers (whenever possible), because I don't want the best scenes ruined for me, but I like to know what I am up against; what to expect.

But with "The Possession of David O'Reilly", I did something a little different. I watched the trailer, yeah, but I didn't read a single review. I didn't read message board posts...I wanted to go in with as fresh of a mind as I possibly could. Perhaps I ruined some past movies by reading too much about them, a sort of self-induced overhype, was my reasoning, and thus I wanted to go into this film knowing nothing than what the trailer showed me.

Maybe this is just another case of poor, misguided marketing--some Internet headlines would have us believe that this is a British version of "Paranormal Activity"--and even its brief synopsis seems to second that, declaring it is "a supernatural shockumentary about a demonic presence in a young couple's home in London." However, that turns out to be bad press for both "Paranormal Activity", and the city of London. Not only is "The Possession of David O'Reilly" a far cry from the aforementioned indie-hit (though I feel I must note that this was conceived and filmed before "Paranormal Activity"), it is both excruciatingly dull, and laughably atrocious. If your idea of scary is watching two grown men and one grown woman scream and run around in a dark apartment while being "chased" by slimy creatures for eighty minutes, than this might be the film for you. Otherwise, you'd be better off letting this one slide by unnoticed, as it has for just about everyone else in the world.

The movie, which is inexplicably filmed in a documentary style, follows Kate and Alex, a British couple who live in a small apartment. One night, one of Alex's friends, named David O'Reilly (see where this is headed?) knocks on the door, and asks if he can stay with them for a while. As we come to find out, he found nude pictures of his wife while folding her clothes--pictures that he himself did not take, and he feels some time out of their house will allow him to clear his mind. But it quickly becomes clear that something is not quite right with David. First, he starts hearing strange noises. Then, he sees strange creatures roaming outside the house.

Despite his constant screaming and erratic behavior, Alex defends him from his wife, claiming that he has known David for a long time, and he has never known him to act like this in the past. Before long, David's insanity spreads to Kate and Alex, who believe they are seeing things themselves, and this is where the movie stoops to a monotonous, repetitive formula: The characters scream, run to another poorly lit room, lock the door, see a monster, scream, run again, etc. The simple solution would be to just leave the apartment, right? Not so fast; the movie has an air-tight rebuttal for that: David claims that if they open the front door to leave, they would let more creatures in. Huh?

(SPOILERS NEXT PARAGRAPH)

Not surprisingly, all of this leads up to a conclusion that I think was supposed to be a twist, but that even casual horror fans could easily see coming from the first reel. Are we really supposed to believe that he is anything but bat-shit crazy? Does writer/director Andrew Cull actually think that he has fooled us into believing the creatures that David sees are real, that they follow him where ever he goes? Are we really supposed to be surprised by the finale? It all reeks of obviousness from David's first appearance, almost as if Mr. Cull thought the idea would sell itself, so he didn't have to.

(END SPOILERS)

For a film whose screenplay seems to center so much around scares, there are absolutely none to be found here. And although I actually found the creature effects (which many people are dismissing) to be pretty good, they feel so out-of-place within the actual film that they seem like nothing more than pathetic, forced attempts to shock the audience. It doesn't work. And even though the creatures are never seen for long, they still work against the creepy atmosphere the movie was trying to create, offering us an explanation for what he sees. If the demons would have stayed in his mind, as they should have, then this might have turned out to be a little better.

On top of the creature effects, I will give the film another plus, that is unfortunately canceled out with another negative: The acting is actually pretty solid, especially for a genre picture. But the screenplay is so poorly conceived and repetitive that all it ends up doing is making the actors look like a bunch of idiots, while simultaneously ruining any chance the film had of being effective in the first place. It is almost as if the filmmakers seriously believed all you need to scare an audience is poor lighting and loud sounds.

Turns out, a good idea to center it all around doesn't hurt, either.

RATING: No stars