Customer Reviews

Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

If you are contemplating this hoping to see a film comparable to "the Exorcist" you will be disappointed. If on the other hand you want something familiar yet new pick it up and give it a viewing. For a direct to video offering it wasn't all that bad. Sure the effects are cheap and the dialogue at times was stomach churning but the story kept my interest and it did have it's scary moments. The hubby was a hunk and the actress playing Gail was not bad. The plot itself is familiar, girl plays around with unknown things gets possessed and priest and psychiatrist try to rescue her. There were a few fresh elements brought into this; the priest was blind from a previous exorcism and there was a distinct method involved in rescuing the possessed. I have to say I enjoyed the ending and it had a touch of purity about it. In the end, don't expect much and view it without comparing it to other films of this ilk. It will make for an entertaining time. C

Ok, first of all- it is obvious from looking at the DVD case artwork that this film is a low budget undertaking. That fact alone should tell most people to not even bother trying to compare it to "The Exorcist". In fact, it's not even as good as "The Exorcism of Emily Rose", but that doesn't make it a horrible movie.

A low budget film faces low budget production. Once you understand that fact you may be able to enjoy low budget films for what they are. And it was obvious to me that this film was WAY low budget. First of all the entire film is shot very darkly...sometimes you can't even tell what you are looking at. The script is a very basic retread of most exorcism stories. Some of the dialogue is very bad, but there are a couple of actors in this film who try and make the best of the weak material. For her first "major" film, Erica Roby playing Gail, does a fine job. Noel Thurman, playing Gail's older sister, is also outstanding. The special effects are on par with what you would expect from a low budget film...some work pretty well, while others do not.

The bottom line is that if you sit down to watch this film and aren't expecting something that rivals "The Exorcist" you might actually enjoy it. It's not a great film, but it's also not the worst movie I've seen.

I give this one a single star just because the women playing Gail and her sister are pretty good.

As for the rest, it claims to be based on the story that inspired the Exorcist, but that is not necessarily accurate. Also, the production quality is horrible and the exorcism sequences go on and on and on and just become tedious more than frightening.

I just finished watching this movie after renting it yesterday. Being such a Horror movie fan and having seen hundreds of them, I rented this movie not for the "possession" per say because the only movie I could never watch again is The Exorcist(original version)!!! I have however watched several other "possession" movies that have come out in the last year or so and I can say that not a one comes close to The Exorcist and I don't believe any other movie that's going to be made will either. So I rented this movie knowing that I could "handle" it because in no way could any other movie come close.... no matter how hard they try. I will say that this is a good movie despite seeming to be a low budget film. I did think that the character of Gail was played well by Erica Roby. The DVD box claims that this is a true story and that it inspired The Exorcist. I've never heard about the story of Gail Bowers. I've always been under the impression that the inspiration for The Exorcist came from a true story about a young boy being possessed. However, this movie did keep me interested from beginning to end. There are no dull, boring parts to this movie. There is some blood and some cool scenes. Yes, we hear the evil devil voice,hear her speak in tongues, see Gail possess superhuman strength and yes, levitate in the air. To me this movie was a Exorcist copy cat type film and not the inspiration for it. But it is not a bad movie. I do not regret renting this movie and do recommend it to other horror movie fans or fans of possession type films. But this again is no where close to The Exorcist... so if you have seen The Exorcist and like me have said Never Again!..... you will be able to watch this movie. Good suspense and some good special effects. Much better than The Exorcism Of Emily Rose which almost put me to sleep. Worth the money to rent this one.

This film reeks of stupidity. Puts me in mind of the "Gingerdead Man". The latter being far superior, in an inferior sort of way, you understand. The acting is silly and forced. The set design, if you'd call it that, is inane and gives the impression that a few kids from the location neighborhood decorated the "room" for a haunted house (take special notice of the bedsheet draped along the window). The fog machine used to simulate cold is ridiculous, especially since there was no "breath" visible when the actors spoke their stupid lines. The psychiatrist friend making house calls? Please. The writing, did I mention the writing? Lord help us from this film, deliver us all. The gore scenes were obviously immature. The two sets of breasts shown were so not needed and only pressed that fact "they" were included to induce young men to rent this film. The CLIMAX was droning and the central character priest was laughable within the context of him trying to be serious. This film was a joke, not even the laughable type. It was horrid and should be avoided at all cost. This film should even be avoided by those who are masochistic. Stupid bull@#$%. Eye rolling, at best.

Aww man!
this is next to Plan 9 from outer space as one
of the worse movies of all time.
I mean the curiosity got me to rent this movie,
it looked interesting but man I can kick myself
in the head for subjecting my family to watching this
with me. I apologised profusely to them. I even apologised
to my DVD player.

A Teen girl along with her sister and hubby moves
into a new home that seems like a nice happy home
til some sort of evil forces start to mess with her.
Until the next door neighbor brings in a Weedgie board
(Sorry for the misspelling)
then the demons/spirits come to life to possess her body...
"exorcist style". She starts to do everything we come to expect a possessed individual in movies like this would do; the obligatory demonic voice-over,sexual suggestions,raunchy sexual dialogue,and lots of cursing...no green vomit in this one..

This is straight to video so don't expect too much special efx
everything takes place in the house and in Gail Bowers room which for some reason looked like the inside of a barn or shed.
You'll want to stop the movie 15minutes towards the end because the exorcism scene gets waaaaaay too long and stupid.
So take my foolish advice.
Stay away from this movie..I warn you!!

<strong>Exorcism: The Possession of Gail Bowers</strong> (Leigh Scott, 2006)

Hey, folks? The Asylum pulled a fast one on you. It may have been a test to see how film-savvy their audience is. And to make sure they were going to hit the lowest common denominator, they grabbed Leigh Scott to do this one, a director whose previous films, including such timeless cinematic classics as <em>Hillside Cannibals</em>, one of the worst films I have ever seen, make him uniquely qualified to expose the stupid. As expected, a whole lot of people rose to the bait and complained that this was a total ripoff of <em>The Exorcism of Emily Rose</em> (or, even better, claimed that this tripe was actually better than one of the only decent horror flicks to come out of Hollywood in the past decade). Folks, you got snowed, and your ignorance of film history is showing. And we're not talking ancient history here, either; <em>The Possession of Gail Bowers</em> is actually a complete ripoff of <em>The Exorcist</em>. Come on. The whole structure is straight-up William Peter Blatty. And you get those touches like the demon possessing a priest and the crawling on the ceiling (that was so ludicrous even back in the early seventies that Friedkin banished it until <em>The Exorcist: The Version You've Never Seen</em> was released in someone's desperate gamble for money) and how much more do you need? Go back and watch Linda Blair looking cute and possessed and you'll have a much better idea of where Leigh Scott was coming from.

Given the first paragraph, do you really need a plot synopsis? Go watch Friedkin. Here are the deviations: the possession begins when Anne (<em>Universal Soldiers</em>' Noel Thurman, perhaps best-known--or she should be anyway--for providing one of the voices in the English dub of the interesting, in minor, Turkish thriller <em>Gen</em>) and Clark (<em>I Love You Philip Morris</em>' Griff Furst, Stephen's son) Pederson move from the wilds of Chicago to a little suburban place with a lot of McMansions and stuff. Anne and Clark took in Anne's sister, Gail Bowers (<em>Invasion of the Pod People</em>'s Erica Roby, who has since left the acting field and is now an associate producer on <em>The Amazing Race</em>), after the death of their parents. Gail quickly makes a friend, the trampy Francie (Rebekah Kochan from the Eating Out franchise), who soon enough turns the conversation of Gail's recently-departed parents and whether Gail has tried to contact them on the other side. Poof! Francie whips out a ouija board, and the game is afoot. Despite Gail's assertion to her religious-conservative sister that "a board game is hardly black magic!", as is the way of things in bad (and sometimes good but misguided) movies, it is exactly that, and a demon comes and sets up shop in Gail's soul. The fam tries to figure out what's wrong with Gail, etc.

To get this out of the way at the forefront: you don't mess with the Friedkin. Even if you'd reworked this script with someone who can actually write, cast this impeccably, and gotten a fantastic director, you still don't mess with the Friedkin. It is a project that is destined to fail. None of that happened, though, so you can't even give the Asylum points for trying here. Scott directed from his own script, and you can imagine just how will that works if you've seen any of his other movies (more recently, Scott was responsible for the ridiculous <em>Flu Bird Horror</em>, for example). And then there's the acting, which is where the Internet's talking heads are most sharply divided. As you may have suspected, I come down on the "terrible" side. Furst reminds me of Ethan Embry, but with even flatter affect, and it's pretty obvious from the nudity that two of the three principal women in this shindig were cast for talents other than their acting. (Roby is the only one who gets out of appearing topless, which if you realize that before watching the movie spoils one scene that I think is supposed to be key--but how can you NOT realize it when she's trying to play the seductress whilst dressed in a thick cotton T-shirt? Come on, folks.)

Awe-inspiringly stupid, but not the worst thing I've ever seen. Won't even hit my bottom 100. But this is still one to avoid like the plague. (half)

I feel sorry for the actors who were forced to work with this terribly written script and poor direction but as we know, Hollywood is more interested in churning out these awful "straight to dvd" horror films.

The movie concerns teenager Gail Bowers (who is obviously much, much older) and her sister and sisters husband who move into a new house after the Bowers parents die. Withing 2 days, Gail suddenly becomes possessed and people start dying. All of this poorly paced plot is thrown at you in the first 20 minutes.

While I do give credit for the attempted effects and eerie feelings, ultimately its amature-ness makes it almost silly.

I bought this at a huge bargain sale after reading reviews saying "its not that bad".

Uhm....yes it is.

I hope they will put in the two Deleted Scenes in the movie someday, so the movie will be uncut.

Amazon/CDnow is asking over $20 for this movie? No way! The acting, the effects and even the script is all poorly done. Portions of this movie do not make much sense. I rented it using a freebie coupon at my local video store. Glad it was not a paid rental. If someone ever does a redo of this movie, I hope they redo it with better actors, better effect and much better written script.