The Possession of David O'Reilly (2010) User Reviews

Could Have Been Better

[Mr_Saxon · 6/10 · 12 November 2010]

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.

Flawed but there's potential here...

[sambax0387 · 6/10 · 12 May 2010]

David O'Reilly isn't Paranormal Activity. Don't go into it thinking it is. They share a few traits but they are very different films.

David O'Reilly is by no means a perfect film but there is potential here. The film's plot is interesting, the characters strong and the performances are far and above better than in most low budget movies.

Unfortunately the effects let the film down. Personally I could have done without much of them. I think the film would have been better without them.

In all David O'Reilly's not going to set the world on fire but I certainly would be interested to see what Andrew Cull might do in the future.

Easy to Figure Out

[onmiwy · 4/10 · 21 December 2011]

I give this movie a 4.5 because at the very least it kept me watching long enough to reassure my "guess" about who the monster(s) really was. I believe David killed his girlfriend Sarah and the demons chasing him were his own guilt manifesting itself.His best-friend fell into his hallucinations only as a best friend could.In the last ten minutes of the movie his best friend's girl begins to realize just how insane David's behavior is when she starts resisting to give into the mass hysteria slowly trying to take over the lot of them by refusing to turn out the light.It was a little annoying for obvious reasons(after reading David's journal neither his best friend or his girlfriend's reaction was believable.....at this point you really have to questions David's sanity just a little more as he is hanging around their house looking like strung out drug addict).Also the best friend and David are running around in most of the movie with knives in the dark so I expected someone to at least get a nick a little earlier on.In closing they show David's best-friend's girlfriend laying on the hallway floor(you can tell by the distinctive tile where she is),with a bloody gut wound. Quite obvious to me it was inflicted by David as she wrestled him to escape.In panic mode I don't believe she knew how mortally wounded she was and kept going until she made it to the hallway and then passed away.I enjoyed this movie because it took very little effort to figure out but still had some "jumpy" parts. I do feel the whole movie/story could have been done as a short and would have been much more effective.

Good, not great.

[samuel_pointer · 3/10 · 18 October 2010]

I was so frustrated whilst watching this. The potential for a fantastic film was all there but it was all let down by the lack of info and the obscure plot.

At first I was lead to believe that this was going to be a new improved British version of Paranormal Activity... I was wrong.

I was dieing for this film to break forward and become its own film. But instead I was just left wondering WHY!? Why? Why did this happen? Why does that happen? At one point I though a few questions were going to be answered as to why this demon is doing this haunting and this was hinted at but still not made clear. With abstract shots of small dark rooms we're led on a cryptic path where nothing is really explained as to why or how it's happening.

Disappointed

[stephroberts_morgan · 2/10 · 19 March 2012]

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!

Misleading title and poor finale, but still, once you are invested in the plot you feel that you have to see it through

[stevedye1868 · 4/10 · 13 October 2015]

By the time i had gotten far enough into the movie to "give it a go" i was far too invested in it to give up (or maybe just too lazy to spend time looking for something else to watch). As has been said, the movie mainly focuses on one guy's emotional downwards spiral and how it is affecting his two friends. The ending? well that was just a cop out. There was no real finale as such. It was like buying a huge firework that has this long fuse that, when the fuse reaches the firework and you are expecting this huge display of sound and light and all you get is "pufft". Oh, and, although it is titled "The Possession of David O'Reilly" i didn't actually see any scene where David O'Reilly was ever actually possessed at all. It was more about a poor guy going crazy and trying to keep something, that may or may not have been a figment of his imagination, out of his friends house. Now, the thing is, it could have been really quite good, the groundwork was all sound. But, unfortunately for the viewers, it was as though the screenplay writer/s were on a deadline and didn't have time to work out a real plot for the end. There are a few jumpy scenes and parts where you are led into the start of a good story, but thats where it stops. It's no "Blair Witch" or "Paranormal Activity"...but, quite easily could have been with a little more thought and what was there was quite well done.

Really let down, mainly, by the poor ending 4/10

It's Okay if you Don't go expecting everything as Paranormal...

[reughr · 5/10 · 2 August 2013]

***Spoilers..i guess*** I gave this movie a 5, midway because I HAVE seen some painfully bad horror movies with equally bad acting, bad story, and bad cinematography. But this one had some potential. Throughout watching the film, I DID say, hey, there's a possibility that the guy's f***kin nuts?! So for me, it prompted a discussion the effects of a psychotic break. In an addition to that, I do like the set up for his issues/paranoid state because you could see that he wasn't sleeping and looked withdrawn. (I, personally, being a person that suffers from bouts of insomnia related to my narcolepsy, I can agree that sleep deprivation CAN and will make you more prone to hallucinations, paranoid thinking and panic attacks/anxiety.) If anything, this movie could've been considered an interesting POV of a man's decent into madness. And with that in mind, the crazy lighting, bad views of the monsters, and confusing sense of story sorta works...

..now as much as I walked away from this movie believing that he was just crazy...there could be a play for a "Silent Hill 2-Video Game story plot" Where its a case of this man's guilt creating a hell that only he sees and experiences. In a sense, the monsters are real, but only in his head. And the mind, being a powerful device is manifesting these things enough to cause such damage (mentally and spiritually)...

Funny. And not in a good way

[JustineAssad · 2/10 · 5 April 2015]

This was probably one of the most ridiculous "horrors" / "haunting" movies I have seen. Most of the time I was laughing - I laughed a lot at that dude running around screaming; I found something hilarious in how he sounded. So I guess in other words: his screams are ill suited for horror movies, and would be better suited for comedy; though I suppose when the guy wasn't screaming... the acting was okay all round, really

Apart from that: the lighting, "cinematography," and story were all below-par, and really: not scary at all, and at times it felt very forced and disjointed, as if they were struggling to make it all go anywhere.

Overall: A very "meh" movie experience.

Supa freaky!

[alek-922-562989 · 7/10 · 12 December 2010]

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. ^_^

No mystery, no suspense, no surprises.

[amanda-soto · 21 July 2011]

Let me at least say that I liked the camera work right away (but could not stand the audio). I liked that there weren't any cheap gimmicks you almost always come across in the horror genre. But that's the only praise I can give this film. There was a lot of useless exposition and scenes that did little to nothing to further the plot. It lacked timing and it didn't use its effects to their full capacity. I didn't jump once during this movie, but I did get bored and wondered when the scary stuff was coming. The ending was predictable. The part where they're running around the building with nothing following them was just annoying. It had all the components that should scare its audience with unseeable things that are lurking in the dark yet failed miserably at utilizing them, because it showed what the monsters looked like too soon. It was frustrating because supposedly these things can prey on you even if you can't see them, but they never actually did anything (except at the very end). Also, didn't these people have jobs? Why didn't they just leave?

Painfully boring

[halfpintofpain · 1/10 · 12 January 2011]

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.

Dark Film Fascinates

[jlthornb51 · 8/10 · 24 April 2015]

A powerful film which explores the dangers inherent in adultery and untreated mental illness. The director is obviously gifted and creates a vivid atmosphere of tension and fear. The cast is outstanding and each member gives a superb performance. The script is intelligent while at the same time offering a horrific glimpse into an insane night. As the story progresses, it is impossible not to think that appropriate mental health interventions should have been taken at some point. Such an effort might well have prevented much of the suffering depicted. However, this film serves to impress upon the public that such treatment should be sought but it fails in not demonstrating the availability of the required help. The theme of adultery could successfully be dealt with quite effectively through couple's counseling and the establishment of more effective lines of communication between partners. Once again, the film doesn't offer any possible solutions but it does do well to point out the tragic consequences of not confronting the issues involved.

Man brings his domestic and "other worldly" problems to his friend's house.

[Someguysomwhere · 6/10 · 4 December 2010]

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.

Boringly ambiguous

[Leofwine_draca · 3/10 · 30 August 2015]

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.

Not Fun

[sempremilanista · 5/10 · 15 March 2014]

I have seen this movie twice now just to make sure I had a decent understanding of it. It starts out interesting but very soon takes a weird and dark turn. This movie kind of reminds me of certain Spanish movies where the outcome is just all kinds of bad. Lots of anxiety, creepy lighting, and sadness, and no glimpse of hope. Depression and a quite precarious sense of being accompanies this film, and the lighting and setting doesn't help. Creepy glass and dim lamps pair with the sad and oppressive theme. To its credit, certain scenes are for sure creepy and "jumpy" like the ones with the "demons" appearing outside, but for me anyway, the jumpiness of the lead character and his manic crap made me nervous and just took away the fun of an otherwise good horror flick.

Good Concept, Ridiculous Lighting!

[adsscuba · 2/10 · 8 June 2013]

Aside from the decent make-up, a convincing portrayal by the lead actor playing David, this was one of the most frustrating films I have ever seen. I am a huge fan of horror, suspense, and the supernatural, but my question is - What happens to the light?? In virtually every "Dark" scene, there is amber light from outside the flat streaming in, it creates shadows of the actor's silhouettes on the walls, BUT when the interior lights are turned off, the exterior light vanishes! While inside supposedly 'dark' rooms, and without their mobile phones, there seems to magically be enough light to see. The two supporting characters are unbelievably stupid to allow a crazed man with a knife to stay in the flat. What is the point of the pregnant lodger?? And, no one ever asks about the salt on the floor??? Another example of the fact that any film written and directed by the same person/ people will either be awesome or feces. This is the latter.

I Don't get it and I want to get it

[nicci1972 · 4/10 · 26 October 2020]

I was thinking schizophrenia; then actual demons then when they brought in the ghost of Anna and the newspapers of all the tragedies-I had no clue!!! If anyone knows what they actual heck what was going on. I gave it a four for the suspense and the monsters but I cannot figure this film out.

Confusing but at times very chilling

[freddy54-211-469054 · 13 November 2011]

I have seen this film twice and after the second viewing, I came to the conclusion that although flawed, the film does contain several unsettling scenes. Overall, I think it is a study of the mental disintegration of the central character, David. How this is achieved is partly through the inclusion of some of the most gruesomely imagined monsters ever to appear on screen. The fact that we only see them briefly and often in half-light is a bonus. By the end of the film, I understood that all four characters are going through a groundhog day experience, from which there is no escape. This is what makes the film very disturbing, leaving a rather bitter aftertaste. We need more British horror movies like this, which show an imagination that no American director could hope to achieve without sacrificing credibility. I would also include "Salvage", "The Disappeared", "13 Hours" and "Outpost".

Wannabe 2 many things

[peter-kat · 1/10 · 2 December 2010]

Man comes to friends home. Stays over the night and a few days. Is possessed by demons ( no suspense about how they look !!! ). Bad ending ...

I am sure that if you are on this page and reading this that you would have seen

1. Paranormal Activity 1 2. Paranormal Activity 2 3. Blair Witch Project 4. Quarantine 5. Cloverfield

Obviously you liked what you saw in terms of the POV camera play , the story lines, the strong story lines, not really being able to see

The Possession of David O'Reilly is similar to none of them. It tries and it tries hard but fails miserably on all counts. The creature effects are amateurish, the story line is never explained clearly.

Bad Bad Movie .... Please don't waste any money or bandwidth

A poor mans Drag me to Hell at best

[Don_Flamenco · 1/10 · 8 May 2010]

I really don't know where to begin here. It was billed as being similar to Paranormal Activity, but the only parallels were the demon theme and the fact that it looked like it was filmed by a 12 year old with a cam corder. They never bother to tell you whats going on or whats terrorizing these people or why. All we know is that there are some creatures that look like Walgreens Halloween costumes wreaking havoc. While I am not the biggest fan of those low budget "documentry? horror movies like Blair Witch and Paranormal Activity, I understand the effectively low budget effect, but David O'Reilly fails miserably to achieve said effect. It is closer to Drag Me to Hell with the person being relentlessly pursued by a demon(s) but without the character development or any of the wit or back story, which is sorely lacks.

One of the best horror movies of 2010?

[philippe-viens · 6/10 · 22 August 2011]

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.

Rather disappointing and bland British creature feature

[kannibalcorpsegrinder · 4/10 · 19 August 2015]

Visiting a group of friends following a nasty break-up, a man finds their house under assault by shadowy, grotesque beings that are utterly remorseless in trying to get at them, forcing them into a long, blood-soaked night to fend them off.

This is yet another in a long, long list of utterly terrible British horror efforts. Of the biggest factors hurting this one is it featuring all the hallmarks of their later films all brought together in a singular whole, starting with pace that features no energy, momentum or excitement. The first half is mainly built around the discovery of her behavior and then meeting up with her friends at their house for several nights complaining about the situation or meeting the neighbors, all of which are a large number of scenes that offer up hardly anything in terms of scares that leave large portions of the film utterly boring. Another big problem here is a series of seemingly scary scenes ruined by the irritating camera that won't stop moving to give you a clear idea of what's going on, either being so dark and devoid of light that it's too shadowy and tough to make it out, or the scenes are filmed similar to a first-person perspective where everything is just out of eye-sight so it's a quick edit away or just so scatter-shot to tell definitely what's happening. The last big flaw here is a decided lack of explanations as to what's happening, so even though there's a few newspapers and the drawings nothing is really definitively given here beyond an utterly lame attempt using a glass like an Ouija Board so it's almost impossible to find anything worthwhile in here. There's at least some halfway decent scenes here, mainly the first home attack scene in here where the darkened house comes from the lack of light around the area leading to plenty of screaming around looking for answers, a vicious escape attempt with the creatures in the room prompting some pretty intense action with the creatures at the end. It's only other decent scene is the freak-out at the end to keep this one with at least a little action throughout here as the scenes of them trying to keep him calm as he frantically tries looking around for the creatures allows a little bit of suspense here, but overall it's still not nearly enough to really make sense of the situation as what could be seen in the situation doesn't make it clear what's going on. Overall, this one isn't really worth it.

Rated R: Graphic Language and Violence.

YOU CAN'T SEE THEM COMING IN YOUR SLEEP

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 28 May 2019]

The movie slowly builds up. It starts out with a young couple Alex and Kate watching TV. She talks in her sleep, "Don't open it." Alex wakes her and they laugh about it. Then the doorbell rings. It is quarter past midnight...as it turns out it is their friend David O'Reilly who brings no luggage, but a lot of emotional baggage. His girlfriend Sarah has left him. He had found some photos of her posing on a bed. Who took them? It must be her lover. David and Alex stay up talking. David is very annoying with his cigarette puffs, long pauses, rocking motion, and dowdy appearance. David doesn't want to sleep. He sees glimpses of demons in the corner of his eye. Later the visions become more pronounced as David starts acting more psychotic, having flash backs. Eventually the whole household is in an uproar as David sleep walks and now is carrying around a knife. Soon Alex starts to see glimpses of the creatures that David now sees plainly while Kate still sees nothing. David shows all the signs of a psychotic who just murdered his girlfriend and is dually suffering from sleep deprivation, who has sucked in his friend Alex with the power of suggestion. But is that the case? I watched the whole thing and I still don't know.

I thought the movie was better than Paranormal Activity, but then what wasn't. It is not filmed as a documentary type film, although much of the scenes take place at night and in poorly lit areas. I am not sure what these people did during daylight hours as it they must be living in the part of England that gets only one hour of light a day (similar to vampire films). The acting was better than most with Giles Alderson giving us a convincing performance as David.

No sex. No nudity. This is a great movie to watch in the dark right before bed time.

Another theory about what's going on.

[oldkingsol · 7/10 · 24 February 2014]

Lots of ideas being bandied about, but I'm pretty sure I get what's happened. Major spoilerage, though, so don't read if you haven't already seen the movie - but might.

That said... I'd wager that everyone was already dead at the beginning of the movie. The couple were ghosts who didn't realize they were already dead, thus the girl whispering, "Don't open it" in her sleep near the beginning of the movie and then again at the end just before revealing her corpse. After panning across her corpse at the end, you could see that the chain was hanging off the door - it was already unlocked. That's the way the door was near the beginning, when Alex first opened the door to let David in - he noticed the door had already been unlocked and the chain hanging there, and had to go back into his apartment to retrieve the key so he could lock it again.

David, too, was already a ghost by that point. As was the woman in the apartment upstairs - though I suspect she wasn't one of David's victims, but just another ghost living in the building. It's possible that the playing with the lights _could_ have been the living, who they couldn't see - kind of like in "The Others".

That's my guess, at least. Makes more sense (to me) than some of the other speculations I'd seen. I don't see any parallels to "Paranormal Activity" at all, and in fact would say this movie exceeds the PA franchise by a great deal in terms of quality.

So called stupidity

[deep2885 · 1/10 · 14 March 2013]

How can some one make this kind of stupid movie.

Total time waste. All Credit goes to director and story maker.

Damn!!!.

Super Stupid...

Don't waste time

Don't waste time. pls Don't waste time. no pls Don't waste time. Do not waste time. Don't waste time. Don't waste time. Don't waste time.

How can some one make this kind of stupid movie.

Total time waste. All Credit goes to director and story maker.

Damn!!!.

Super Stupid...

Don't waste time

Don't waste time. pls Don't waste time. no pls Don't waste time. Do not waste time. Don't waste time. Don't waste time. Don't waste time.